What Is Reform UK Promising?

Reform UK has published a bold and populist document titled Our Contract with You, laying out sweeping reforms they promise to deliver within their first 100 days in power. From economic overhauls to scrapping climate policies, the document reads more like a cultural mission statement than a conventional manifesto. It is filled with bold pledges that position the party as anti-establishment, anti-“woke,” and pro-British sovereignty. While the document taps into voter frustration, especially in post-Brexit Britain, many of its claims are either misleading, already enacted, or legally problematic.

But what lies behind the headlines? In this post, I break down the key proposals—what’s new, what’s misleading, and what’s already law—using publicly available evidence and academic sources.

1. 🎯 Ideology Over Evidence

The tone of the document is aggressively populist. Reform UK frames mainstream politicians as corrupt elites and blames Britain’s social and economic woes on “mass immigration,” “woke ideology,” and even the European Convention on Human Rights (Reform UK, 2024). The language positions the party against a “London-centric elite” and international bodies like the World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Court of Human Rights. This creates an us-versus-them narrative. These types of messages often appeal to those who feel excluded from politics, but they also oversimplify complex global relationships and ignore the importance of international cooperation.

For example, rejecting the WHO Pandemic Treaty and threatening to leave the WHO undermines the UK’s ability to work with other countries during global health emergencies. These are cooperative agreements, not top-down rulebooks. The manifesto treats them as conspiratorial threats to sovereignty, which is misleading.

🔍 Reality Check: Such rhetoric aligns with what political scientists call “populist radical right” discourse—us versus them, where “the people” are pure and elites are corrupt (Mudde, 2007).

2. 💰 Fantasy Economics: £160 Billion in Savings?

Reform UK claims it can save or generate over £160 billion per year through a mix of spending cuts and growth. Here’s the breakdown:

• Scrapping Net Zero and green subsidies: Claimed savings of £30bn per year
• Ending Bank of England interest payments on reserves: £35bn
• Cutting “waste” in government departments: £50bn
• Immigration and welfare reform savings: £29bn

These figures are extremely optimistic and lack any backing from independent financial bodies such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS).

Let’s examine two of the most problematic claims:

• Cutting 5% from all public sector spending sounds simple, but this includes frontline services like education, transport, and policing. There is no plan for what would be cut or how it would be managed without harming service delivery.
• Halting interest on Bank of England reserves may save money short-term, but it could severely undermine trust in UK monetary policy. It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of how quantitative easing and central banking operate.

These are not viable funding plans. They are ideological statements dressed up as economic policy.

🔎 No independent body, such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), supports these savings estimates.

3. 🛂 Immigration and Asylum: Fact vs Fiction

Reform UK pledges to:

• Freeze non-essential immigration
• Deport all foreign criminals post-sentence
• Bar student dependents
• Remove legal aid from non-citizens

🧾 Much of this is already law or has been implemented:

• Foreign criminals are already subject to automatic deportation under the UK Borders Act 2007.
• Student dependents have been banned from most visa categories since January 2024.
• Asylum seekers do not receive social housing and have no recourse to public funds.
• Asylum seekers cannot be returned to EU countries post-Brexit unless there are bilateral agreements (House of Commons Library, 2023).

What Reform UK fails to explain is how its policies will comply with international laws like the 1951 Refugee Convention. The UK cannot return asylum seekers to countries where they are at risk. It also can’t unilaterally remove protections provided under treaties it has signed—especially since we are no longer part of the EU’s Dublin III Regulation post-Brexit. Reform UK’s pledge is either uninformed or misleading, as it suggests a dramatic new stance when in fact the infrastructure already exists. It reinforces a populist narrative about a lax immigration system, despite the UK’s already strict regime for foreign national offenders.

Moreover, it omits key barriers:

Many cases face diplomatic or logistical hurdles, such as countries refusing to accept returns.

Deportations can be blocked on human rights grounds (e.g. right to family life under Article 8 ECHR).

This section of the manifesto is heavy on rhetoric and light on legality.

🚨 Risks: Several proposals would likely breach international human rights laws, including the Refugee Convention and the ECHR. This is not a new or groundbreaking policy. It is a repackaging of existing laws, likely designed for political effect rather than practical change. As such, it lacks policy novelty and fails to acknowledge the legal, ethical, and diplomatic complexities already in play

4. 🏥 NHS: A Push Toward Privatisation?

Reform UK proposes:

• 0% income tax for NHS staff for 3 years
• Vouchers for private care if NHS targets are missed
• 20% tax relief on private healthcare and insurance

These ideas may seem attractive, especially to overstretched staff, but they indicate a deeper shift toward privatisation.

• Vouchers for private care could undermine NHS services by redirecting public funds to private providers without addressing root causes like staff shortages and underfunding.
• Tax relief for private insurance benefits higher earners and does little to support those reliant on public healthcare.

The manifesto also proposes ending training caps and writing off student loans for NHS workers—positive ideas in theory, but with no costings attached.

Critically, there’s also a plan to fine patients who miss appointments and abolish the NHS Race and Health Observatory—moves that prioritise punishment and remove vital health inequality research.

🎯 The takeaway: This promotes marketisation of the NHS—shifting public funds into private systems without guarantees on equity or outcomes (Pollock & Roderick, 2018).

⚠️ Also problematic: Proposals like fining patients who miss appointments or abolishing the NHS Race and Health Observatory suggest a punitive, not preventative, approach to healthcare.

5. 📚 Education: Patriotic, Not Practical

Reform UK wants:

• A “patriotic curriculum”
• Ban on discussing gender identity in schools
• Permanent exclusions for disruptive students
• Tax incentives for independent schools

These policies are framed around cultural grievances. There is no mention of increasing funding, tackling SEND backlogs, or improving mental health support.

• The call to ban gender identity discussion ignores the needs of transgender and non-binary students, risking higher rates of bullying, mental health issues, and exclusion.
• Tax relief for private schools deepens the divide between state and private education and does nothing to improve outcomes for the majority.

What’s missing? A serious conversation about underfunded schools, overworked teachers, and the widening attainment gap.

🧠 The evidence says:

• Inclusive education supports mental health and wellbeing (Stonewall, 2022).
• There’s no proof that removing DE&I policies improves performance. In fact, it often correlates with worsened outcomes for marginalised students (EHRC, 2023).

This section is heavy on culture war rhetoric, light on educational outcomes.

6. 🌍 Climate: Denial and Misinformation

Reform UK wants to:

• Scrap Net Zero
• End renewable subsidies
• Drill for oil and gas in the North Sea

These are some of the most dangerous proposals in the document. The UK is legally committed to reaching Net Zero by 2050 under the Climate Change Act 2008.

🚫 The truth:

• Net Zero is the law (Climate Change Act 2008).
• Renewables are now the cheapest energy sources (DESNZ, 2023).
• Most energy price rises are due to gas price spikes, not renewables (IEA, 2022).

💡 Bottom Line: This isn’t cost-saving—it’s climate backpedalling with long-term costs. These policies appeal to voters angry about rising bills, but they misplace blame. Most of the recent energy crisis was due to fossil fuel volatility, not green energy.

---

7. 🏛️ Law, Order, and Liberties

On policing and justice, the party calls for:

• 40,000 new police officers
• Life sentences for second-time violent offenders
• Scrapping diversity roles in policing
• Mandatory prison for knife possession
• Ending “woke policing”
• Sacking Chief Constables

While public concern about crime is valid, Reform UK’s solutions are overly punitive and ignore the root causes—such as poverty, addiction, and lack of youth services.

• “Zero tolerance” has not been proven to reduce crime in the long term.
• Scrapping diversity and inclusion initiatives could actually increase public distrust in policing.

✅ Real issue: Police trust and crime are public concerns.

⚠️ But: Many of these pledges already exist or are uncosted. And removing equality oversight undermines lawful commitments under the Equality Act 2010.

⚠️The manifesto also makes no mention of addressing violence against women and girls—a glaring omission given the rise in gender-based violence.

8. Governance, Rights, and the Rule of Law

Reform UK proposes to:

• Leave the European Convention on Human Rights
• Scrap the Equality Act 2010
• Replace the House of Lords
• Limit postal voting

These reforms would fundamentally weaken checks and balances in British democracy.

• The ECHR is a cornerstone of European democracy and was co-authored by British lawyers. Leaving it would breach the Good Friday Agreement.
• The Equality Act protects against discrimination on the basis of race, sex, disability, age, religion, and sexual orientation. Scrapping it would strip millions of legal protections.
• These reforms would fundamentally weaken checks and balances in British democracy.
• The ECHR is a cornerstone of European democracy and was co-authored by British lawyers. Leaving it would breach the Good Friday Agreement.
• The Equality Act protects against discrimination on the basis of race, sex, disability, age, religion, and sexual orientation. Scrapping it would strip millions of legal protections.
• Who Would Be Affected?
• Disabled people, who rely on legal protections for equal access to work, services, and housing.
• LGBTQ+ individuals, who are protected from discrimination and harassment under the Equality Act.
• Religious minorities, whose rights to worship and fair treatment are safeguarded by human rights law.
• Ethnic minorities, who continue to experience racial discrimination and benefit from equality legislation.
• Women, particularly in relation to equal pay, maternity rights, and protection from gender-based violence.
• Elderly citizens, whose rights to dignity, care, and accessibility are enshrined in equality frameworks.
• All voters, especially those who rely on postal voting due to age, disability, work, or caring responsibilities.
• Citizens of Northern Ireland, as withdrawal from the ECHR would violate aspects of the Good Friday Agreement and jeopardise peace.

What is presented as “freedom” and “sovereignty” is in reality a regression of civil liberties and democratic accountability.

9. 🏘️ Housing and Families: A Return to the 1950s?

Reform UK wants to:

• Prioritise locals for social housing
• Scrap the Renters Reform Bill
• Incentivise stay-at-home mothers via early child benefit
• Mandate single-sex public facilities
• Restrict smartphones for children and investigate social media harms

🔍 Fact-check and Analysis:

1.Social Housing and Immigration

• Asylum seekers do not have access to social housing (UK Parliament, 2024).
• Claims that migrants receive priority are misleading and fuel anti-immigrant sentiment.

2. Marriage Tax Allowance

• “No tax on the first £25,000 of either spouse’s income” (Reform UK, 2024, p.16)
• ⚠️ Expensive, Regressive, and Gendered: This would cost tens of billions annually and mostly benefit higher-income households where one partner earns significantly more.
• The assumption that marriage causes social stability is flawed—research shows economic security predicts relationship success, not vice versa (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2023).

3. Child Benefit Front-Loading

• Reform UK claims: “Most mothers would choose to stay at home more if they could.”
• Echoes campaigns from Mothers at Home Matter (2024).
• 🧠 Risks reinforcing gender roles, ignores workplace inequality and the gender pay gap and makes no provision for fathers, same-sex couples, or disabled and BAME parents.

4. Mandating Single-Sex Public Facilities

• The Equality Act 2010 already allows for single-sex spaces with reasonable accommodation for trans individuals (EHRC, 2022).
• This proposal stokes moral panic and targets the rights of transgender people, not safety.

5. Social Media and Children’s Mental Health

• Reform UK links social media to mental health decline—there is some truth to this (Royal Society for Public Health, 2023).
• However, their proposals politicise the issue by linking it to anti-trans and anti-CRT sentiment.
• A more constructive solution includes:
  • Digital literacy in schools
  • Algorithmic regulation
  • Youth-led research into online harms

Reform UK’s family platform revives a 1950s ideal of parenting and gender roles, wrapped in moral panic about “wokeness” and social media. While acknowledging important issues like child mental health and parental burnout, the policies:

✅ Constructive Themes	❌ Critical Issues
Recognition of early childhood importance	Assumes caregiving is women’s role
Concern about social media and wellbeing	Politicises safeguarding and attacks minority groups
Financial support for families (in theory)	Proposals are regressive, expensive, and discriminatory
Advocacy of “choice” for parents	Lacks structural solutions: no childcare reform or inclusive family models

10. Social Care and Pension Policy: Promises and Pitfalls

1. Royal Commission into Social Care Reform

“A national plan is critical for a sustainable social care system.” (Reform UK, 2024, p.20)

✅ Recognises the Crisis, but Delays the Solution

• Calling for a Royal Commission reflects the urgency and complexity of the issue. However, successive reviews (e.g. Dilnot Commission, 2011) have already provided comprehensive roadmaps. A new commission risks kicking the can down the road.
• What is needed now is actionable implementation—not another inquiry.
• The proposal to unify funding streams between the NHS and local authorities reflects best practice in integrated care systems (NHS England, 2022), but this cannot be done without:
  1. Increased funding
  2. A national workforce plan
  3. Safeguards for equity and access

🧠 A Royal Commission is not inherently wrong, but the crisis in adult social care is immediate, and solutions already exist. Political will—not research—is the missing ingredient.

2. Ending Offshore Tax Avoidance by Care Providers

“Stop large providers using tax havens and shareholder loans to avoid tax.”

✅ Ethical and Economically Sound

• Several large care chains (e.g. HC-One, Four Seasons) have faced criticism for complex ownership structures allowing tax avoidance, while delivering inconsistent care standards (Centre for Health and Public Interest, 2021).
• Reform UK’s position aligns with calls from unions, think tanks, and Select Committees, and could:
  1. Ensure better financial transparency
  2. Redirect profits into staff pay and care quality
  3. Create a level playing field for not-for-profit providers

🧠 This is a welcome and necessary step, though details are needed on how enforcement will occur—via HMRC reform? Regulatory body oversight?

3. Simplify and Reform Pension Provision

“Our system is complex and poor-performing compared to Australia.”

⚠️ Broadly Correct, But Oversimplified

• The UK’s pensions landscape is indeed fragmented, with multiple private schemes, workplace auto-enrolment, and the state pension.
• Australia’s superannuation model is often praised for its simplicity and scale, but:
  1. It is mandatory, raising questions of individual autonomy
  2. It relies heavily on market performance, which can expose retirees to volatility
• Reform UK offers no detail on whether it supports:
  1. A mandatory pensions model
  2. Replacing auto-enrolment?
  3. Raising the minimum contributions?

🧠 Criticism of UK pensions is justified, but Reform UK’s comparison lacks policy depth and fails to engage with the trade-offs involved in international models.

4. Support for Mineworkers’ Pension Reform

“Accept 2021 BEIS Committee recommendations to amend the scheme so all surpluses go to the Mineworkers.”

✅ Morally Just and Politically Popular

• The Mineworkers Pension Scheme (MPS) has long been criticised for allowing the government to claim 50% of fund surpluses while contributing nothing since 1994.
• In 2021, the BEIS Committee recommended that all future surpluses should go to scheme members (BEIS Committee, 2021).
• Reform UK’s backing of these recommendations:
  1. Recognises historic injustice
  2. Aligns with cross-party support
  3. Will be politically resonant in ex-industrial heartlands

🧠 While Reform UK’s endorsement of this policy is welcome, the lack of detail on how the financial transition would be managed is a missed opportunity.

Reform UK’s proposals on ageing, pensions, and care signal public sympathy with vulnerable older people but remain short on delivery mechanisms and heavily reliant on abstract pledges of economic growth to fund reform. Key themes include anti-globalist sentiment, decentralised care provision, and promises of dignity—yet few tangible tools are offered.

11. British Values and Sovereignty: A Nationalist Rebrand?

Reaffirm British Sovereignty – Leave WHO and Reject WEF Influence

“Cancel membership of the WHO unless reformed. Reject CBDCs and cashless society.” (Reform UK, 2024, p.22)

• The World Health Organisation is a UN agency responsible for coordinating global health policy, including early warning systems and pandemic preparedness. Reform UK’s threat to leave the WHO:
  1. Undermines international collaboration during global health emergencies
  2. Ignores the voluntary and non-binding nature of WHO’s guidance
  3. Echoes conspiracy-driven narratives around “globalist” influence
• CBDCs (Central Bank Digital Currencies) are still in consultation phases in the UK (Bank of England, 2023), and the government has not proposed eliminating cash.
• Opposing CBDCs and “a cashless society” on libertarian grounds misunderstands the actual policy trajectory, which retains cash and includes extensive public consultation.

🧠 Global engagement and digital innovation are not incompatible with sovereignty—rejecting them isolates the UK in a deeply interconnected world.

2. Replace the Equality Act 2010 and Scrap DE&I

“Positive action is discrimination. DE&I has lowered standards and productivity.”

❗ Dangerously Misleading and Regressive

• The Equality Act 2010 does not enforce “positive discrimination,” but permits positive action where groups are underrepresented—this is legal, optional, and narrowly defined (ACAS, 2023).
• Research by the CIPD and others has consistently shown that effective Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI):
  1. Improves organisational performance
  2. Increases staff wellbeing and retention
  3. Promotes creativity and representation (CIPD, 2023)
• Reform UK’s narrative implies that protected characteristics (e.g. gender, race, disability) have undermined standards, perpetuating divisive and unfounded culture war rhetoric.

🧠 Scrapping the Equality Act would remove legal protections against discrimination for millions, including disabled people, women, ethnic minorities, and LGBTQ+ communities.

3. Comprehensive Free Speech Bill / Oppose ‘Cancel Culture’ and ‘Sharia Law’

“No more cancel culture, left-wing bias, or Sharia law in the UK.”

⚠️ Populist Misuse of Free Speech Language

• The UK already protects free speech under common law, the ECHR, and domestic statutes. Reform UK provides no legal justification or evidence for the need for additional legislation.
• “Cancel culture” and “left-wing mobs” are undefined buzzwords used to:
  1. Silence criticism of harmful views
  2. Undermine equality initiatives and minority advocacy
• Sharia law has no legal status in the UK and is used only in voluntary religious arbitration—subject to UK law and human rights frameworks (Law Society, 2021).

🧠 Free speech cannot be selectively applied—it protects unpopular views but not immunity from social consequences, nor does it override equality law.

4. Reform of the BBC – Scrap Licence Fee

“The BBC is biased and outdated.”

While concerns over editorial impartiality exist across the political spectrum, the BBC remains a cornerstone of:

1. Independent journalism
2. Cultural production
3. Educational broadcasting

Scrapping the licence fee without a sustainable alternative:

1. Threatens public service broadcasting
2. Could result in a commercialised, underfunded media landscape
3. Harms local and regional programming, especially for underrepresented communities

🧠 Criticising the BBC should not be a pretext for weakening free press and independent media ecosystems.

5. Make St George’s and St David’s Day Public Holidays

✅ Harmless National Pride, But Tokenistic

• Recognising national identities within the UK can build cultural cohesion and visibility, especially for England and Wales, where national days are not yet statutory holidays.
• However, this is largely symbolic and does not address structural inequalities or cultural inclusion challenges.

6. Anti-Corruption Unit for Westminster

✅ Necessary Accountability Measure – Needs Clarity

• The UK has faced recent scandals involving lobbying, undeclared interests, and PPE contracts during the pandemic (NAO, 2022).
• An Anti-Corruption Unit with independent powers could improve:
  1. Transparency
  2. Whistleblower protection
  3. Ministerial standards
• However, Reform UK must clarify:
  1. Whether it supports independent parliamentary oversight (e.g. Standards Committee)
  2. The relationship to existing regulators, such as the Electoral Commission and National Audit Office

🧠 Accountability reform is welcome—but must be independent, non-partisan, and embedded in legal frameworks.

Reform UK’s portrayal of “British values” is highly ideological, exclusionary, and often conspiratorial. By framing global collaboration, equality legislation, and multiculturalism as threats, the party promotes a narrow version of national identity that contradicts inclusive democracy and legal protection for all

✅ Constructive Suggestions	❌ Critical Problems
Anti-corruption oversight for Westminster	Calls to scrap the Equality Act threaten protections for marginalised communities
National holidays for cultural recognition	Conflates DE&I with lower standards and economic decline
Scrutiny of international governance is valid	Misrepresents WHO, ECHR, and Sharia law; promotes isolationist nationalism
Supports free speech in principle	Frames free speech as a weapon against civil rights, journalism, and minorities

Conclusion: A Contract for Whom?

Reform UK’s 2024 manifesto is not so much a roadmap for practical governance as it is a bold ideological pitch. It blends nostalgia, nationalism, and populism into a document that aims to channel public anger rather than address complex policy problems with meaningful, evidence-based solutions.

While the document speaks to real anxieties—about the cost of living, healthcare backlogs, housing shortages, and institutional trust—it frequently proposes regressions that would weaken civil liberties, dismantle equality protections, and damage international cooperation.

Much of what Reform UK presents as new is either:

Built on cultural grievance rather than robust policy (e.g. anti-DEI, anti-trans stances)

Already in place (e.g. deportation rules, student visa reforms)

Legally or economically unfeasible (e.g. £160bn in savings, ECHR withdrawal)

The party frames issues of justice, healthcare, education, and energy through a culture war lens. In doing so, it neglects the structural causes of social inequality and overestimates what can be achieved through deregulation, tax breaks, and nationalistic rhetoric alone.

Yes, there are some constructive ideas—particularly around ending tax avoidance in care, improving access to training, and reforming pensions for ex-miners. But these are overshadowed by a wider agenda that would roll back decades of progress in rights, representation, and international standing.

For voters seeking serious change, this manifesto offers more theatre than substance. And for marginalised groups, the stakes could not be higher.

🧠 Democracy thrives on informed debate. Let us not confuse simplicity for sincerity, or slogans for solutions.

Reform UK’s portrayal of “British values” is highly ideological, exclusionary, and often conspiratorial. By framing global collaboration, equality legislation, and multiculturalism as threats, the party promotes a narrow version of national identity that contradicts inclusive democracy and legal protection for all.

✅ Constructive Suggestions	❌ Critical Problems
Anti-corruption oversight for Westminster	Calls to scrap the Equality Act threaten protections for marginalised communities
National holidays for cultural recognition	Conflates DE&I with lower standards and economic decline
Scrutiny of international governance is valid	Misrepresents WHO, ECHR, and Sharia law; promotes isolationist nationalism
Supports free speech in principle	Frames free speech as a weapon against civil rights, journalism, and minorities

📚 References

• ACAS. (2023). Improving Equality, Diversity and Inclusion in the Workplace. London: Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service.
• Bank of England. (2023). Monetary Policy Report – November 2023. London: BoE.
• Bank of England. (2023). The Digital Pound: Consultation Paper. London: BoE.
• BEIS Committee. (2021). The Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme. London: House of Commons Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee.
• Blyth, M. (2013). Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea. Oxford University Press.
• Centre for Health and the Public Interest. (2021). Plugging the Leaks in the UK Care Home Industry. London: CHPI.
• CIPD. (2023). Diversity and Inclusion at Work: Evidence Review. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
• Climate Change Committee. (2023). Progress in reducing emissions – 2023 Report to Parliament. London: CCC.
• Department of Health and Social Care. (2023). People at the Heart of Care: Adult Social Care Reform White Paper. London: DHSC.
• Dilnot, A. (2011). Fairer Care Funding: The Report of the Commission on Funding of Care and Support. London: HM Government.
• EHRC. (2022). Provision of Services and the Equality Act. London: Equality and Human Rights Commission.
• EHRC. (2023). Pregnancy and Maternity-Related Discrimination in the Workplace. London: Equality and Human Rights Commission.
• House of Commons Library. (2023). Asylum and the UK–EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement. London: UK Parliament.
• House of Lords Library. (2023). Foreign national offenders in UK prisons: Powers to deport. London: UK Parliament.
• IEA. (2022). World Energy Outlook 2022. Paris: International Energy Agency.
• IFS. (2023). Options for Personal Tax Reform. London: Institute for Fiscal Studies.
• Joseph Rowntree Foundation. (2023). Why Low-Income Families Need Structural Reform, Not Marriage Incentives. York: JRF.
• Law Society. (2021). Sharia Law and Family Arbitration in the UK. London: Law Society.
• Mothers at Home Matter. (2024). 2024 Party Manifesto Review. London: MAHM.
• National Audit Office. (2022). Investigation into Government Procurement During the COVID-19 Pandemic. London: NAO.
• NHS England. (2022). Integrated Care Systems: Design Framework. London: NHS England.
• NHS England. (2022). NHS Race and Health Observatory: Annual Review. London: NHS England.
• Reform UK. (2024). Our Contract with You. London: Reform UK.
• Royal Society for Public Health. (2023). Status of Mind: Social Media and Young People’s Mental Health. London: RSPH.
• Stonewall. (2022). Inclusive Education: Research and Resources. London: Stonewall.
• Stonewall. (2023). LGBTQ+ Inclusion in Public Services: Facts and Guidance. London: Stonewall.
• The Guardian. (2023). Jeremy Hunt’s Myth About Stay-at-Home Mothers and Benefits. 19 February.
• UK Government. (2024). Tough Government Action on Student Visas Comes Into Effect. London: GOV.UK.