THE headline in the Daily Telegraph read: “Kemi Badenoch: I no longer identify as Nigerian.”
The Tory leader, Olukemi Olufunto Adegoke, was born in Wimbledon on January 2, 1980. But her parents returned to Nigeria where she grew up until she was 16. She returned to the UK and is now married to Hamish Badenoch and the couple have two daughters and a son.
Speaking on the Rosebud podcast with Gyles Brandreth, she said: “I have not renewed my Nigerian passport, I think, not since the early 2000s. I don’t identify with it anymore, most of my life has been in the UK and I’ve just never felt the need to. I’m Nigerian through ancestry, by birth despite not being born there because of my parents, but by identity I’m not really. I know the country very well, I have a lot of family there, and I’m very interested in what happens there. But home is where my now family is, and my now family is my children, it’s my husband and my brother and his children, in-laws. The Conservative party is very much part of my family, my extended family, I call it.”
Her comments have been widely reported. I would have thought her identity is not unidimensional but a real potpourri – Nigerian (it’s hard not to be since she spent her formative years in Nigeria), British, wife, mother, the first black woman to be Tory party leader and would be prime minister.
It is important not to twist her words or misrepresent her, but she almost appears to be saying: “I am distancing myself from my Nigerian roots. Although I may look like a black woman, inside I am culturally white.”
The question to ask is: why is Kemi Badenoch saying what she is saying?
Is she a little confused and in need of a session with Raj Persaud? Is she to be applauded for asserting, “I’m black and British” (which she could have said but didn’t), or is she scared of Nigel Farage?
Not so long ago, Rishi Sunak said: “Of course I’m English, born here, brought up here, yeah, of course I’m English.”
But he was also happy to light Diwali diyas in Downing Street and visit Hindu temples and didn’t feel the need to say, “I no longer identify as Indian.”
Lord Swraj Paul has long used a mathematical impossibility: “I am 100 per cent British and I am 100 per cent Indian.”
British prime minister Keir Starmer delivers his keynote speech at Britain's Labour Party's annual conference in Liverpool, Britain, on September 30, 2025
Prime minister Sir Keir Starmer’s declaration that the next election is “a battle for the soul of the country, exemplifies how Reform leader Nigel Farage’s new frontrunner status made him the main target of his political opponents during this year’s party conference.
"Don't let Trump’s America become Farage's Britain" was LibDem leader Ed Davey’s theme in Bournemouth. That was a confident, liberal message with an appeal to most people in this country. Davey’s literal Trump card is that he is the most prominent politician being willing to openly criticise a US president who three-quarters of the British public disapprove of. It passes the ‘tik-tok test' of being communicable in three seconds to those paying little attention to politics.
Starmer has to work with the leader that the US public chose to elect. So, he tried to make a similar argument, but in more abstract language: contrasting ‘patriotic renewal’ with ‘the politics of grievance’ - and ‘decency’ versus ‘division’. The general public may find that harder to decode than his party audience in Liverpool.
Trump once boasted that his supporters would let him get away with murder on Fifth Avenue. Farage’s opponents fear that the normal rules of scrutiny might never apply to him, either. Yet Farage made unforced errors under pressure - partly because he does not appear to recognise any risk in his close association with Trump. Being unwilling to criticise the US president’s unfounded claims about paracetamol being a cause of autism panders to a narrow conspiracist fringe that could be a red flag to the more mainstream voters who Farage needs to persuade and reassure. The 14 per cent of votes he got last time were from four million people who have often voted for Farage’s parties in the past decade. Making a serious bid for power - trying to turn 14 per cent into 30 per cent - involves targeting another four million voters, who have mostly chosen not to do so before.
Yet, there are few voices for reassurance or moderation in Reform’s internal debate to counter online and ideological pressure to radicalise. Former academic turned populist advocate Matthew Goodwin says the key is that Reform must be more like Trump’s second term than his first. That amounts to a call for the authoritarian rejection of democratic norms.
The radicalisers are winning the war for Farage’s ear. After Farage’s call for mass deportations of those here without legal status was criticised as ‘weak sauce’ by Elon Musk, the Reform leader expanded the threat to up to two million people. He proposed to abolish indefinite leave to remain entirely - including reneging on commitments made to those told Britain was their permanent home.
Downing Street’s initial flat-footed response was to call the Farage plan ““unrealistic, unworkable and unfunded” before the prime minister was persuaded that he needed to make a moral argument.
“It is one thing to say ‘we’re going to remove illegal migrants’, people who have no right to be here. I’m up for that. It is a completely different thing to say we are going to reach in to people who are lawfully here and start removing them. They are our neighbours. It would tear our country apart”, he told the BBC’s Laura Kuennsberg last Sunday (28).
Starmer made headlines by calling the Farage plan ‘racist’ too. That was an unplanned response to the journalist’s question. As Reform appears to be now exempting four million European nationals with settled status from its plan, while threatening up to half a million people - often Commonwealth nationals from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nigeria - in a similar ethical position, the impact is discriminatory, whatever Reform’s unexplained motive for this differential treatment.
Yet Starmer’s strongly worded argument as to why those here legally should not be threatened with deportation seemed to be contradicted by his own home secretary’s keynote speech on Monday (29).
Shabana Mahmood told the Labour conference she would be a tough home secretary - but a tough Labour home secretary. On small boats and asylum hotels, the government must respond to public pressure for change - with an orderly, workable and humane asylum system. Mahmood sees this as crucial to challenging the rise of racism.
Unlike its asylum challenge, the government’s proposals on settlement do not respond to any public appetite for change. The government wants a 10-year baseline for settlement - though most people - including seven out of ten Labour voters - believe that five years is a fair timeline, as our recent British Future report shows.
The home secretary put her speech’s headline message that ‘migrants must contribute to earn their right to stay’ into block capitals on social media before government sources scrambled to clarify that this would not actually apply to those who have arrived in the past five years. The government is yet to begin its policy consultation - but what that dividing line between decency and division should mean in practice will be a crucial and contested question this autumn.
Sunder Katwala is the director of thinktank British Future and the author of the book How to Be a Patriot: The must-read book on British national identity and immigration.
By clicking the 'Subscribe’, you agree to receive our newsletter, marketing communications and industry
partners/sponsors sharing promotional product information via email and print communication from Garavi Gujarat
Publications Ltd and subsidiaries. You have the right to withdraw your consent at any time by clicking the
unsubscribe link in our emails. We will use your email address to personalize our communications and send you
relevant offers. Your data will be stored up to 30 days after unsubscribing.
Contact us at data@amg.biz to see how we manage and store your data.
Destroyed buildings in the besieged Palestinian territory last Wednesday (17)
PRIME MINISTER Sir Keir Starmer was, if anything, a little late in coming to the party when he accorded formal recognition of a Palestinian state last Sunday (21).
India did so on November 18, 1988, two days after Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Starmer has followed most of the rest of the world.
His words were clear: “So today, to revive the hope of peace and a two-state solution, I state clearly as prime minister of this great country that the United Kingdom formally recognises the state of Palestine. We recognised the state of Israel more than 75 years ago, as a homeland for the Jewish people. Today, we join more than 150 countries who recognise a Palestinian state, a pledge to the Palestinian and Israeli people that there can be a better future.”
The UK’s move coincided with similar recognition from Canada, Australia and Portugal. Other countries also joining the list are Belgium, France, Luxembourg, Malta and possibly New Zealand and Liechtenstein.
Although Starmer said “we recognised the state of Israel more than 75 years ago”, it would be more accurate to state that the UK was the prime mover in the creation of “a homeland for the Jewish people” in 1948.
Therefore, the UK’s formal recognition of a Palestinian state is not just one more country joining a long list. It has moral and international significance.
To be sure, there is a tiny minority of people in the UK who argue Starmer is in the wrong, but a referendum would show that probably 75-90 per cent of the British people think he is in the right.
Most people are persuaded that in response to Hamas’s brutal killing on October 7, 2023, of 1,195 people (among them 736 Israeli citizens, including 38 children, 79 foreign nationals and 379 members of the security forces) and the taking of about 250 hostages, Israel has and is continuing to commit genocide in Gaza. This is acknowledged by Jewish people brave enough to speak out.
Omer Bartov can hardly be accused of being anti-Semitic. He is Dean’s professor of Holocaust and genocide studies at Brown University in the US.
His article, Never Again, in the New York Times in July, stated: “I’m a Genocide Scholar. I Know It When I See It.”
He wrote: “My inescapable conclusion has become that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people. Having grown up in a Zionist home, lived the first half of my life in Israel, served in the I.D.F. as a soldier and officer and spent most of my career researching and writing on war crimes and the Holocaust, this was a painful conclusion to reach, and one that I resisted as long as I could. But I have been teaching classes on genocide for a quarter of a century. I can recognise one when I see one.”
He pointed out: “This is not just my conclusion. A growing number of experts in genocide studies and international law have concluded that Israel’s actions can only be defined as genocide.”
Last week, a UN commission of inquiry also said Israel had committed genocide in Gaza. Across a three-page resolution, the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) presented a litany of actions undertaken by Israel throughout the 22-month-long war that it recognises as constituting genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
And earlier this month, Israel’s Supreme Court ruled that the state is failing to provide adequate food to Palestinian prisoners, and must take steps to improve their nutrition. The three-judge bench said the government was legally obliged to provide prisoners with enough nutrition to ensure “a basic level of existence”.
Again, the judges can hardly be accused of being anti-Semitic.
Benjamin Netanyahu
The United States is one of the few countries that continues to give unquestioning support to Israel, which it considers its main ally in the region.
Meanwhile, for the British people, the Gaza war is no longer something far away. As Starmer said: “I know the strength of feeling that this provokes. We have seen it on our streets, in our schools, in conversations we’ve had with friends and family. It has created division. Some have used it to stoke hatred and fear, but that solves nothing.”
Backed by the US, Israel prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has the military power to destroy Gaza completely, which it has pretty much done, kill or starve to death a significant part of its population, and occupy the West Bank.
But there is a price to pay for that – apart from international condemnation which Israel can choose to ignore. It does mean there is no long-term peace for the people of Israel who will have to resign themselves to war without end.
It may be wiser to accept a Palestinian state, help to rebuild Gaza, pull out of the illegal settlements in the West Bank – and, at least, seriously test whether this new path works.
Keep ReadingShow less
Thames Valley Police officers conduct security checks in Windsor last Friday (12) ahead of Donald Trump’s state visit
US PRESIDENT Donald Trump’s visit sees the British state deploy all of its pomp and pageantry to stroke his ego. King Charles has the constitutional duty of pretending to like the American president, as his UK government seeks to limit the economic damage and diplomatic fallout of this more volatile second Trump term.
But could Trump’s presence provide a spectre of British politics yet to come? He arrives with Reform leader Nigel Farage riding high in the polls, and after Tommy Robinson’s mass rally in London.
Hope Not Hate called it the biggest far-right rally in British history. Many of those who attended would dispute that characterisation, but the organisers certainly had no qualms about platforming extremist content. Elon Musk went much further than Enoch Powell, whose ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech claimed to be prophesying violence to avert the danger. The radicalised Musk told the large crowd that violence was coming, so that they should adopt it pre-emptively. Musk’s ability to enter Britain in future must depend on a public retraction of this call for violence.
The mood music of British politics seems to be moving sharply to the right. Yet the Labour government has lost its voice on challenging racism for much of this summer. When it is struggling so badly on asylum, the fear of being perceived to call everybody racist has seemingly left it unable to criticise even neo-Nazis.
Immigration was one of Trump’s strongest issues at the last election. Nigel Farage now seeks to emulate that with his arguments for mass deportations and abolishing asylum in the UK.
So a new BritishFuture report, “How we can actually stop the boats,” takes on the exam question that does most to keep ministers up at night. I have coauthored the report with Frank Sharry, a US immigration expert who also worked for the Biden and Harris campaigns. It details some surprising lessons from America about how to avoid our own Trump moment here.
For three years, the Biden administration struggled with unauthorised entry of two million people a year – a much greater inflow than the small boats that feel like an existential threat in Downing Street. Biden initially sought to duck the issue, seeing it as a distraction from his economic agenda. But that political strategy of avoidance failed.
Yet the untold story about the Biden administration at the border is not just about political failure – but also of a belated policy success. A mix of diplomatic cooperation, a significant new legal route and the refusal and return of those who came outside of it, led to illegal border crossings from Mexico falling by 81 per cent in the final year of the Biden administration. It happened too late, politically, for the Kamala Harris campaign, but it offers insight to Shabana Mahmood and Keir Starmer over how to defeat Trumpism in Britain.
The UK and US contexts are not identical but there are transferable lessons. The new UK-French pilot scheme works on similar principles. The initial pilot scheme may begin by removing 50 people a week – about 2,500 a year. That is around one in seventeen people crossing the Channel. A pilot won’t significantly reduce numbers, or disrupt the smugglers’ business model, while most people know this is unlikely to affect them .
But if the pilot can be expanded ten-fold, it would make returns more likely than not. At twenty times the scale, it could operationalise a returns guarantee. That could reduce crossings by 75 per cent and provide a path to closing down the irregular route as a viable way to claim asylum in Britain. The US experience offers hard evidence of what can be achieved when this approach is delivered at scale. The government does want to scale the pilot at pace and is dealing with the legal, practical and political challenges, including political instability in France.
The British Future report presents striking new evidence of how the ‘routes for returns’ deal can depolarise public opinion too. We hear a lot about the anger of those protesting outside hotels, and sometimes the counterprotestors too. But most people are balancers on immigration. A majority want action on Channel crossings but still want Britain to protect refugees in need. Farage’s rejectionist case for ditching the principle of refugee protection would destroy too much; but the humanitarian counter-argument needs to combine both more control as well as more compassion if it is to secure popular support.
The anti-Trump protestors can claim to speak for Britain: three-quarters of people remain bemused that American voters could have chosen Trump a second time.
Most people would prefer an orderly, controlled and humane system to the populist threat of tearing everything up. The government’s job is to show that combining control and compassion can work.
Sunder Katwala
Sunder Katwala is the director of thinktank British Future and the author of the book How to Be a Patriot: The must-read book on British national identity and immigration.
Keep ReadingShow less
Piyush Goyal with Jonathan Reynolds at Chequers during the signing of the UK–India Free Trade Agreement in July
IN SIR KEIR STARMER’S cabinet reshuffle last week, triggered by the resignation of Angela Rayner, the prime minister shifted Jonathan Reynolds from business and trade secretary and president of the board of trade after barely a year in the post to chief whip, making him responsible for the party.
The move doesn’t make much sense. At Chequers, the UK-India Free Trade Agreement was signed by Reynolds, and the Indian commerce and industry minister, Piyush Goyal. They had clearly established a friendly working relationship.
Reynolds apparently bought Goyal an ice cream some weeks ago when they were walking in London’s Hyde Park and ironed out the last remaining problems.
Goyal will have to start all over again with Reynolds’s replacement, Peter Kyle.
At least, Lisa Nandy, who managed to sign a cultural agreement with India, remains culture secretary, despite persistent reports she was due for the sack. I have high hopes of Kanishka Narayan, who has been appointed parliamentary under-secretary in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. Crucially, chancellor Rachel Reeves has not been given another job.
But, in his heart of hearts, Starmer must know he cannot win the next general election if she remains his chancellor. Her vindictive VAT raid on private schools has ruined the lives of many children and forced school after school to close. And the rules on inheritance tax and non-doms have driven many Indian entrepreneurs to flee to Dubai. Starmer should be “pragmatic” – a word he likes – and reverse these policies for the good of the country.
Finding romance today feels like trying to align stars in a night sky that refuses to stay still
When was the last time you stumbled into a conversation that made your heart skip? Or exchanged a sweet beginning to a love story - organically, without the buffer of screens, swipes, or curated profiles? In 2025, those moments feel rarer, swallowed up by the quickening pace of life.
We are living faster than ever before. Cities hum with noise and neon, people race between commitments, and ambition seems to be the rhythm we all march to. In the process, the simple art of connection - eye contact, lingering conversations, the gentle patience of getting to know someone - feels like it is slipping through our fingers.
Whether you’re single, searching, or settled, the landscape is shifting. Some turn to apps for convenience; others look for love in cafés, gyms, workplaces or community spaces. But the challenge remains the same: how do we connect deeply in a world designed to move at lightning speed?
We’ve become fluent in productivity, in chasing careers, in cultivating polished identities. Yet are we forgetting how to be fluent in intimacy? When was the last time you sat across from someone and truly listened - without checking your phone, without planning the next step, without treating time like a currency to be spent?
It’s a strange paradox: we have more access to people than ever before, yet many feel more isolated. Fun is always available - dinners, drinks, nights out, fleeting encounters - but fulfilment is harder to grasp. Are we mistaking access for intimacy? Are we human, or are we slowly adapting into versions of ourselves stripped of those raw, humanistic qualities - vulnerability, patience, tenderness - that once defined love?
Perhaps we’ve grown comfortable with the fast exit. It’s easier to ghost than to explain. Easier to keep moving than to pause. But what does that cost us? What do we lose when romance becomes a checkbox on an already overstuffed to-do list?
The truth is - the heart doesn’t move at the pace of technology or ambition. It moves slowly, awkwardly, with a rhythm that resists acceleration. Maybe that’s the point. Love has always lived in the messy spaces - hesitant pauses, nervous laughter, words spoken without rehearsal.
So the real question for 2025 is not “Have we gone too far?” but “Can we afford to slow down?” Can we still allow ourselves the sweetness of beginnings - the chance encounters, the unplanned moments, the quiet courage to be open?
Because in the end, connection is not about speed or access—it’s about presence. In a world that won’t stop moving, choosing to be present might be the bravest act of love we have left.