Friday, September 19, 2025

Consistent policy, not “patchwork” regulations, recommended for the coexistence of crops



Australian farmers face inconsistent guidelines when it comes to crop regulations across genetically modified (GM), organic and other crop frameworks, according to new research from the University of Adelaide.


University of Adelaide



Australian farmers face inconsistent guidelines when it comes to crop regulations across genetically modified (GM), organic and other crop frameworks, according to new research from the University of Adelaide.

“Even though different sectors in Australian cropping regulate coexistence of both genetically modified and organic crops, they do so in different ways,” says lead researcher Michail Ivanov, whose review was published in Griffith Law Review.

“For example, different standards or codes of conduct recommend different physical barriers or buffer zones between paddocks to prevent cross-pollination. Similarly, sectors have different thresholds for how much genetically modified material a farmer can have in their crop before it is considered organic, non-GM or otherwise.”

Currently in Australia, there is no overarching legal framework for the coexistence of GM and non-GM crops. Instead, regulation is left to industry, with various standards and codes applied differently across sectors.

“They apply in different ways, so the regulation is a bit of a patchwork quilt,” Ivanov explains.

As of 2025, Australia has approved five GM crops for commercial cultivation: cotton, canola, Indian mustard, safflower and bananas. Ivanov says this list has expanded over time and will likely continue to do so.

Some inconsistencies exist within the organic industry itself, where privately owned certifying bodies impose differing standards.

“This means that farmers, both organic and otherwise, cannot have the same expectations about whether their operations would meet a particular certification, such as being considered ‘organic’,” Ivanov says. “It’s difficult to appropriately regulate coexistence across all of Australian agriculture if there are inconsistencies within specific sectors.”

Ivanov’s paper revisits the high-profile 2015 court case Marsh v Baxter, in which an organic farmer sued his neighbour for negligence and nuisance after finding GM canola on his property. The Court ruled against the organic farmer. Ten years on, the case has left uncertainties about how similar disputes might be decided in future.

“It’s unclear how a case similar to Marsh v Baxter might play out,” Ivanov says. “The outcome related to its specific facts. It wasn’t a win for the GM sector, nor a loss for the organic sector. And, importantly, it’s remained part of the public consciousness.”

While current research suggests coexistence is possible, Ivanov notes that what “coexistence” means differs between articles, sectors and regulations. With genome edited (GE) crops nearing commercial cultivation, Ivanov says it is vital to reconsider Australia’s regulatory frameworks now before inconsistency between GM regulations extends to GE regulations.

“With the emergence of biotechnologies in agriculture such as genome editing, we need to think carefully about how we regulate existing and new crop types, and the implications for coexistence,” Ivanov says. “As cultivation expands, we must ensure these crops can reasonably coexist with others grown in Australia.”

The Federal Parliament is currently considering the National Organic Standard Bill 2024, which would create a national organic standard. Ivanov hopes this will bring greater consistency to organic regulation.

“Now is the right time to discuss coexistence, so the organic sector can decide how it wants to regulate it in a practical and reasonable way,” he says.

 

LEDs shed light on efficient tomato cultivation



For the first time, LED-based controlled agricultural methods matched the performance of traditional greenhouses for growing tomatoes in some ways, but with greater consistency




University of Tokyo

Progress need not follow a straight line 

image: 

The S-shaped growing path for the cherry tomato plants yielded more fruit for an equivalent volume, plus it reduces the time to harvest. ©2025 Yamori et al. CC-BY-ND

view more 

Credit: ©2025 Yamori et al. CC-BY-ND





Researchers including those from the University of Tokyo have successfully grown large tomatoes and cherry tomatoes, both rich in nutrients, in tightly controlled environments where the light source was energy-efficient LEDs. Such methods were often limited by the types or sizes of plants that could thrive in such conditions. This feasibility study demonstrates the researchers’ method is suitable for urban environments, potentially even in space, and can offer food security in the face of climate change or extreme weather conditions.

Pizza, pasta, soup, salad, the tomato really is a versatile and delicious food crop. Its delicious and nutritious nature comes with a cost though; it has a very high demand for light, as well as water. While tomatoes grow well in some parts of the world, there are many regions where the local climate is not ideally suited to them, and with climate change exacerbating weather and the environment, having a way to improve yields or enable cultivation at all have long been sought. Greenhouses are the main method for creating a controlled environment suitable for growing crops, including tomatoes, but they have drawbacks and still rely on natural sunlight, which can be a limiting factor in some areas. If you’ve ever bought greenhouse-grown tomato soup in Iceland for example, you may have realized this all too well.

There has been some research and even agricultural use of artificial light plant factories (ALPFs), which are exactly what they sound like: fully controlled environments tailored to specific crops to maximize yields without compromising on other factors. These have a proven track record but require a lot of power to operate due in part to the lighting they require. A logical step is to use energy-efficient LED lights, which has been successful for certain crops such as leafy greens, but nothing more substantial. Spinach and lettuce are nice, but they’re no slice of pizza. Realizing this limitation, Associate Professor Wataru Yamori from the Graduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences at the University of Tokyo and his team decided to refine this concept to make it bear fruit.

“Plant factories are resilient to climate extremes such as droughts, floods and heat waves that increasingly disrupt traditional farming. They can be built in deserts, cities, or one day even in space. By bringing production closer to consumption, they help reduce both climate risk and food transport needs,” said Yamori. “For many years, people assumed that crops with relatively long cultivation periods that require high light intensity, such as large-fruited tomatoes, could not thrive under LEDs. Our earlier work proved that cherry tomatoes, and even edamame, could be grown in such systems. Testing large tomatoes was the next logical challenge, pushing the boundaries of what plant factories can do.”

The team did more than just change a few lightbulbs out for LEDs though. They firstly fit an enclosed factory space with the standard materials necessary for growing tomatoes, but introduced different lighting setups, both using high-efficiency LEDs, depending on which variety of tomatoes they were growing. Over the course of a year, they lit large-fruited tomato plants from above, coaxing them to grow straight upwards as you’d expect. But the second setup involved lighting smaller cherry tomato plants from either above or from the sides, in such a way that they grew upwards in an S-shape series of bends.

The larger tomato plants grew well but didn’t quite match the yields or sugar content when compared with greenhouse-grown plants, though they did have more vitamin C. As for the cherry tomatoes, these exceeded expectations, with similar yields to greenhouses but significantly higher quality. In addition, the S-shaped plants fruited sooner, further increasing yields.

“Our study demonstrates that large-fruited tomatoes, once considered too difficult to grow under artificial lighting, can be stably cultivated in a fully-enclosed LED plant factory. This marks a turning point as LED factories, usually thought suitable only for leafy greens, can also support demanding fruiting vegetables like tomatoes,” said Yamori. “At present, greenhouse-grown tomatoes still tend to be larger and sweeter. But LED-grown tomatoes offer improved consistency. They maintain stable quality year-round and are often richer in nutrients like vitamin C. With continued improvements, we expect factory tomatoes to match, or even surpass, greenhouse ones in taste.”

Of course, anyone who’s ever tried (and especially those who failed) to grow demanding crops like tomatoes knows all too well that there are many factors to control in order to cultivate them.

“Perhaps the biggest hurdle was optimizing the light environment. Large tomatoes need plenty of energy for both growth and ripening, and it wasn’t clear whether LEDs could provide enough. But balancing light, temperature, humidity and nutrients in a closed space required a great deal of trial and error,” said Yamori. “LED-grown tomatoes are likely to appear first in regions where traditional farming is difficult, or where transport costs are high. They also fit well with the idea of ‘local production for local consumption,’ something that could be harvested in the city and eaten fresh, without long supply chains. Costs are still a little higher, but as the technology spreads and renewable energy is integrated, prices will become more affordable.”

It may still take a while before your local salad bar grows its own crops, but the possibilities extend even beyond that.

“Vertical tomato farms in skyscrapers are not science fiction anymore. Pilot projects exist around the world, though mostly for leafy greens,” said Yamori. “With our results, it’s realistic to imagine tomatoes being grown in skyscrapers within 10 to 20 years, and even in experimental systems for growing fresh produce on the moon or Mars.”

###

Journals:

Ningzhi Qiu, Hao Shen, Dan Ishizuka, Keisuke Yatsuda, Saneyuki Kawabata, Yuchen Qu, Wataru Yamori, “Harnessing LED Technology for Consistent and Nutritious Production of Large-fruited Tomatoes,” HortScience.

https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI18868-25

 

Hanaka Furuta, Yuchen Qu, Dan Ishizuka, Saneyuki Kawabata, Toshio Sano, Wataru Yamori, “A Novel Multilayer Cultivation Strategy Improves Light Utilization and Fruit Quality in Plant Factories for Tomato Production,” Frontiers in Horticulture.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fhort.2025.1633097

 

Tomoki Takano, Yu Wakabayashi, Soshi Wada, Toshio Sano, Saneyuki Kawabata, Wataru Yamori, “Sustainable Edamame Production in an Artificial Light Plant Factory with Improved Yield and Quality,” Scientific Reports.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-17131-w

 

Funding: This work was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI (18KK0170, 21H02171, and 24H0227).

 

Useful links:

Graduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences - https://www.a.u-tokyo.ac.jp/english/

Crop Physiology Laboratory - https://park.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/yamori-lab/english-page.html

It’s subtle, but the LED-grown cherry tomatoes are slightly richer in color, which corresponds to their nutritional content. Compared to greenhouse-grown tomatoes, the LED-grown ones had 15% more sugars, 7% more vitamin C and 7% more lycopene. 

©2025 Yamori et al. CC-BY-ND

Researchers with LED-grown tomato plants. 

©2025 Yamori et al. CC-BY-ND

About The University of Tokyo:

The University of Tokyo is Japan's leading university and one of the world's top research universities. The vast research output of some 6,000 researchers is published in the world's top journals across the arts and sciences. Our vibrant student body of around 15,000 undergraduate and 15,000 graduate students includes over 5,000 international students. Find out more at www.u-tokyo.ac.jp/en/ or follow us on X (formerly Twitter) at @UTokyo_News_en.



China’s high-oil peanuts: Breeding breakthroughs and challenges




KeAi Communications Co., Ltd.
Distribution and Genealogy of High Oil Peanuts in China. 

image: 

Distribution and Genealogy of High Oil Peanuts in China.

view more 

Credit: Dongmei Yin, et al




Peanuts are an important global oilseed crop, with China leading in production and consumption. High-oil peanut varieties, containing over 55% oil, offer notable economic and nutritional benefits. Agaonst this backdrop, in a new study published in Reproduction and Breeding, a team of researchers analyzed 238 such varieties across China, evaluating their agronomic performance, disease resistance, and genetic background.

“We found a notable trade-off: higher oil content often means lower protein levels, posing a challenge for breeders aiming to improve both traits simultaneously,” shares corresponding author Prof. Dr. Dongmei Yin from Henan Agricultural University. “Additionally, while many varieties showed resistance to major diseases like leaf spot, bacterial wilt, and rust, few exhibited high-level resistance.”

Meanwhile, six varieties demonstrated broad resistance to five common diseases. The  high-oil varieties thrive best in specific regions of China, particularly Northern, Eastern, and Central China, as these areas provide ideal growing conditions with longer seasons, distinct seasonal changes, and nutrient-rich, well-draining soils that promote oil accumulation in peanuts. “We’ve found that local cultivation practices and generations of genetic adaptation have created varieties specifically suited to these regions’ unique environments,” says Yin.

Key parent varieties, such as Kaixuan 016 and CTWE, which have been instrumental in developing these high-oil traits were also identified. These varieties have developed novel germplasm with both high oil content and strong heritability, which has enabled the release of these superior varieties,  including Luohua 21 (61.04%), Luohua 9 (58.33%), Luohua 15 (57.30%), Luohua 19 (56.50%), Luohua 1 (56.45%), Luohua 4011 (56.20%), Luohua 11 (55.70%), and Nongdahua 206 (55.60%).

“However, expanding genetic diversity through wild relatives and modern molecular techniques will be essential to overcome current limitations,” adds Yin.

###

Contact the author: Dongmei Yin, College of Agronomy, Henan Agricultural University, Zhengzhou, China, yindm@henau.edu.cn.

The publisher KeAi was established by Elsevier and China Science Publishing & Media Ltd to unfold quality research globally. In 2013, our focus shifted to open access publishing. We now proudly publish more than 200 world-class, open access, English language journals, spanning all scientific disciplines. Many of these are titles we publish in partnership with prestigious societies and academic institutions, such as the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC).

 

Opinion

It’s time to get serious about stopping the global authoritarian network



Claire Jones 
Yesterday
Left Foot Forward

It would be a mistake to assume democracy is our default state, or to underestimate the power and reach of authoritarianism




It’s troubling to hear the political commentariat describing Trump’s and Farage’s actions as ‘unprecedented’. It suggests they are observing individual pieces of the jigsaw instead of the broader authoritarian context.

Authoritarian systems differ on such parameters as religious vs secular, left (Communist China) vs right (Orban’s Hungary); blatant vs faux democratic. But, as Anne Applebaum observes, authoritarians are now shelving these differences to attack a perceived common enemy: democracy itself.

To acquire and retain power and funding, modern authoritarians have to dismantle democratic infrastructure: accountability, transparency, veracity in political, financial and media institutions, the separation of judicial and executive powers, and free elections which, together, enable us to choose our leaders.

Previously, authoritarian governments were restrained by their exclusively national focus. However, increased global trade and the internet have driven the proliferation of complex international networks for co-ordinating anti-democracy campaigns.

Belarus now maintains its authoritarian regime with “Kleptocratic financial structures, a complex of security services including paramilitary, and disinformation” (Autocracy Inc.) provided by Russia and Iran. Maduro’s Venezuala is similarly kept afloat by Russia, Iran, China, Cuba and Turkey.

The authoritarian toolkit: word theft


The core authoritarian weapon, I’d argue, is narrative theft, i.e. the seizure of democratic narratives to legitimise their ideology. This dark art has many masters. Echoing Russia’s anti-European diatribes, Vance criticises Europe for abandoning the “democratic principle that the voice of the people matters”. In his 2025 conference speech, Farage describes Rayner’s tax issue as “screaming entitlement” and ignoring ‘the interests of the British people’. Whilst commemorating Charlie Kirk‘s death, Trump accuses the “radical left of being directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country today”. The point of these massively hypocritical narratives is to seed conspiratorial doubt about the motives behind ordinary politics.

Beyond the rules: the manosphere and culture wars

These stolen narratives are framed by the patriarchal ‘strong man’ principle. Authoritarians view democracy as not only strategically obstructive but feminised, weak and ‘violating the natural order’. Contempt and control-freakery drive the paranoia of Trump’s and Farage’s brutal deportation programmes and the intensity of their invectives: democracy, though weak, is seductive and must be repeatedly and noisily destroyed through the manipulation of citizen rage and fear.

Additionally, the ‘strong man’ as the idealised white, heterosexual male leader, explains the authoritarians’ weaponization of culture wars and their support, now rapidly normalising in the UK and US, for national racial purity.

It also underpins the ‘quasi-aristocratic divine power’ that authoritarians award themselves. This entitlement to govern, deemed essential and natural, is unconstrained by ‘specious democratic laws’ and obviates the need for integrity and honesty.

Trump and Farage’s ‘firehose of falsehoods’ becomes a necessary, means-end part of their armoury for overthrowing ‘illegitimate, harmful systems’. Trump is likely, for example, to strengthen his grip by holding rigged elections which retain an appearance of democratic protocol.

Spreading the word

The links traced here are only small threads in a network which, as a whole, has an enormous capacity for anti-democracy campaigning designed to “connect democracy with degeneracy and chaos” (Applebaum). Key players are Breitbart founder, Steve Bannon, and conference outlets like US CPAC which now enjoys an international presence in Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Poland and Hungary.

Other conduits are satellite television companies like China’s StarTimes, now expanded across Europe, Asia and Africa. Meta and X’s refusal to regulate online content has created further sprawling global arenas for authoritarian messaging.

In the UK, Paul Marshall’s takeovers have magnified right/far-right content in our mainstream media considerably. Farage’s own media role now spans GB, the BBC and US Fox News and, on social media, his international Tiktok following alone is bigger than all the UK’s other MPs combined.

As Liam Byrne’s research on populist networks shows, there is now a “complete fusion” between UK far-right media and politics, with GB news acting as an organisational locus. Through algorithmic amplification, the curious can be introduced to the entire ecosystem within hours.

Meanwhile, the UK’s tenuous progressive majority is, conveniently for Reform, being scattered by the emergence of new left-wing parties frustrated with Labour.















Dosh: the financial ecosystem


Reform support climbs in line with its grip on propaganda outlets. Now a self-described ‘government in waiting’, it attracts significant donations from home and abroad, recently receiving funding from international donors such as Heartland, the Israeli embassy and Nova Venture Holdings, a company controlled by US-based oil and gas investors.

Like the rest of the intricate global authoritarian ecosystem in which it sits, Reform is able to massively amplify its messaging by exploiting the lack of regulation in international finance. Funding flows from Russia, China and the US are sustaining European and UK far-right populism using shell companies and crypto, a currency associated with money laundering and illicit finance. Farage recently announced that Reform will start accepting crypto donations.

The US dominates this ecosystem: 33 million dollars pa are currently fed into the European populist network from the US Christian Right alone, and “80% of the most important influencers in the UK network are US populists”. Imported US propaganda dominated the interventions of far-right activists Musk, Bannon and Joey Mannarino, (of ‘rape is “a fake”’ fame) at the recent London anti-immigration rally.

What do we do? Rationalism and its limits

One progressive response extends Fukayama’s Panglossian notion of democracy as superior: we should see democracy as inherently rational, truth-based and pre-ordained. Once experienced, it will naturally and inevitably be adopted and progress in a linear way towards ‘better’.

This view encouraged the idea that global trade would increase democratisation through closer alliances. Willi Brandt’s acceptance of Russian gas pipelines to Germany, later extended across Europe, was seen, like increased trade relations with China, as a way of ‘teaching democracy to others’.

Democracy, sustained by truth and rationality, means that Trump’s and Farage’s incompetence and corruption have only to be exposed for their supporters to grasp that they’ve been lied to. When the veil is lifted they will be repelled and vote elsewhere. Hence the worthy focus on, say, showing Reform ‘messing up’ in local councils.

Silos and double standards

This progressive view doesn’t fit history comfortably though. Victims of authoritarian propaganda become radicalised into cult thinking and eventually fully silo’ed. It isn’t simply that they lack access to the truth but that ‘truth’ is relativised to their own unshareable ‘realities’. However many ‘truths’ are thrown at MAGA cultists, they see US Democrats, just as Farage encourages his supporters to see Labour and other left-leaning parties, as degenerate, false, corrupt, and dangerous.

Anti-democracy becomes “immune to just about everything that the establishment throws at it” (Matthew D’Ancona).

This doesn’t mean authoritarian narratives completely immunise their victims, only that we underestimate the tenacity of the alternative realities they inhabit. And every time democracy ‘slips up’, which is regularly (the list of corruptions from Watergate to Partygate and beyond is long and turgid) the cultists have their own world view forcefully re-confirmed.

Putinesque dictators are well aware of democracy’s double standards. Kleptocratic shell purchases are tolerated in the UK, US and elsewhere. Corruption infects democratic governments in their willingness to be lobbied by powerful corporates whose interests are served by inequality and by the unequal distribution of wealth.

This ‘corruption’ allows authoritarians to reason from moral equivalence: ‘Since all states are corrupt, corruption is normal (and inescapable). But only some states are strong. Therefore, you are better off in our strong (corrupt) state’.

Authoritarian regimes can fall. Spain and Portugal recovered. But resilience is built in. Russia, China and North Korea are unlikely to democratise in the foreseeable future. Project 2025 is aligned with global authoritarianism and won’t stand or fall with Trump. And, given Reform’s embedded place in the global authoritarian ecosystem, it’s naïve to think the party’s survival depends on Farage. The drive to crush democracy and, with it, our citizen rights, will outlive them.

The moment for realism

Another response is to view democracy, not as progressively linear, but locked into an ongoing emotive, tribal battle with authoritarianism, without a natural or rational guide for who wins. On this view, authoritarianism acts less like a stage of human ignorance, and more like an inherent disease susceptibility.

In the post-war period from 1945, democracy gained the upper hand, reaching its zenith in the 1990s but, despite constitutional guardrails, proved weaker than hoped. The ‘good chaps’ premise underpinning our democratic institutions turned out to be flimsy and no match for the internet. It’s relatively easy now for authoritarians to win propaganda wars with helpful algorithms, angry citizens and supine governments.

Democracy isn’t a given. Whether it can be fortified against authoritarian takeovers in robust and enduring ways is an open and now desperately urgent question. We can’t wait for ‘sheer reason’ to either preserve or restore democratic normality.

Trump’s rapid dismantling of US democracy ‘everywhere, all at once’ means the US may well already be lost. The global network backing Reform UK, and so contemptuous of European democracy, is keen to continue providing funding and propaganda to undermine it here.

Governments have a fundamental duty to protect their citizens from attack. This, by definition, includes the assaults described here on our democracy. Their ferocity is conveyed in Stephen Miller’s eerily mirrored use of narrative theft to describe our democratic world (not his) as a “vast, organised ecosystem of indoctrination” with the power to “deeply and violently radicalise”.

Since a Reform win is now a realistic possibility, frankly we have an emergency. Starmer’s ‘homeopathic’ response to Reform has failed. Our democratic future hangs on Labour changing course, radically and rapidly. As citizens, we must pressurise Labour to find its moral backbone, co-ordinate with other progressive parties, and harness economic delivery to an emotionally compelling counter-vision powerful enough to pull us back from the brink.

Claire Jones writes and edits for West England Bylines and is co-ordinator for the Oxfordshire branch of the progressive campaign group, Compass

Image credit: House of Commons – Creative Commons



Nigel Farage throws tantrum over being snubbed from Donald Trump’s state banquet

18 September, 2025 
 Left Foot Forward

He whined that Keir Starmer wants to pretend he doesn’t exist



Nigel Farage threw a tantrum yesterday after being snubbed from Donald Trump’s Windsor Castle state banquet.

The Reform leader whined that “Starmer wants to pretend that I don’t exist”, but insisted he didn’t really care about being snubbed.

Farage then quickly went on to boast about his supposed connections with senior Republicans.

He claimed he had chatted with secretaries of state Marco Rubio and Scott Bessent the night before and that he had been to a reception in Washington “the other week with double digits numbers of cabinet ministers”.

Asked about being left off last night’s banquet guest list, Farage said: “I don’t expect anything from this government at all, and you can argue, if you like, it’s the King’s invitation. It’s not really, is it? No, Starmer wants to pretend that I don’t exist.”

He added bitterly: “Snub me, Starmer, if you like, I don’t really care”.

Following Peter Mandelson’s sacking from his role as Ambassador to the US, Farage brazenly claimed Trump had recommended him for the role back in 2017.

He added: “it won’t happen now”, but said it was “a great shame” he wouldn’t be offered the job “because the wine cellar is amazing”.

Despite never having been considered for the job, he said: “even if I was offered the job, how could I possibly take it now that I’m leader of Reform”.

Farage also claimed Trump “knows”, and his administration are “acutely aware”, he would become prime minister if an election were held tomorrow.

Reform head of policy Zia Yusuf also moaned about Farage not being invited to the banquet.

He shared a picture of the empty banquet table on X and complained: “All these seats, space for Kemi and even Ed Davey was invited.

“Yet no invite for @Nigel_Farage, the leader of the party with a commanding lead in national polls, and close friend of the guest of honour. Very sad.”

Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward



Opinion

Reform UK will be following the Trump model of governance should they win


18 September, 2025 
Left Foot Forward 


One session at Reform's conference was titled “Saving British democracy and lessons from Trump”




Shaun Roberts, Director of Campaigns, Unlock Democracy

The last decade in British politics is the most turbulent we’ve seen in our lifetimes. Yet in the last 6 months, things have changed even more dramatically with the rise of Reform UK.

There has never been a period this long in polling history where a party that’s not Labour or the Conservatives has led the polls. Reform UK has been ahead in most polls since February and every one since April. They obliterated both Labour and the Conservatives in the May elections. They are the bookmakers’ favourites to win the next election and Nigel Farage is favourite to be the next prime Minister.

Everyone can agree that it is not business as usual. As elections guru, Sir John Curtice, commented recently, “Everything has changed.”

Reform UK’s Annual Conference at the Birmingham NEC earlier this month was a glitzy and very well attended event. Anyone attending would have left with the conclusion that Reform’s leadership are very serious about changing Britain.

Much of Reform’s policy platform is currently being revisited, with Zia Yousef appointed by Nigel Farage at the Conference to overhaul it.

But one thing is crystal clear from everything Reform UK said: an incoming Reform UK Government would be far more like Trump’s administration, than what we’ve seen from the UK Labour Government, with an intense focus on speed of action.

Trump 2.0 came in with a blizzard of Executive Orders to immediately begin work to put his agenda into action. He’s barely let up in six months – sacking anyone whom he sees as threatening his agenda, removing independent oversight, taking federal control of everything he can. The courts have pulled him back very occasionally, but it’s clear Trump has taken unprecedented power as President, and is using it.

Meanwhile, nearly 14 months since the General Election, large parts of Labour’s legislation announced in the King’s Speech is still very gradually making its way through Parliament. The parliamentary session looks set to be lengthened well into 2026 to allow time for the Government’s legislation set out in its first King’s Speech to get through.

A clear example of the desultory speed our democracy is moving is the incredibly simple Bill to remove hereditary peers from the House of Lords. As we write this, after more than a year, it’s still not through Parliament, despite it being in Labour’s manifesto and one of the least radical changes to the House of Lords anyone could have put forward (essentially it completes the 1998 Lords reforms).

Whilst we would not suggest that President Trump’s methods should be a model for democracy anywhere, you also have to say that a functional democracy should move faster than this. Trump doesn’t even have the luxury of a huge majority in the Senate or the House of Representatives, in the way Labour does in the House of Commons.

In July 2024, UK voters clearly voted for change. Here in September 2025, very few voters see change happening quickly enough. And that brings us back to Reform UK who are clearly the main beneficiaries of public dissatisfaction right now.

At the Reform UK Conference they were talking about appointing 500 Reform peers to ensure their legislation would face no opposition in the Lords. They were talking about the immediate repeal of human rights legislation, equalities legislation, net zero legislation and much more. Their view seems to be that any law or body that might restrict the Government’s power to act should be removed.

One session at the conference was titled “Saving British democracy and lessons from Trump” and one of the key speakers was former Conservative Minister Jacob Rees-Mogg. Rees-Mogg described his experience in Government of being blocked again and again by civil servants and the law.

Reform UK Policy Chief Zia Yousef told the Conference that Elon Musk’s DOGE had failed because in the US, Congress controls the spending. He remarked that in the UK, that power all lies with the Prime Minister and Government as long as they have a majority.

It’s clear that Reform UK will be following the Trump model of governance should they win power here.

So where does this leave things? Unlock Democracy is a strictly non-party political organisation; we are on the side of people – who, in a democracy, should be the only ones dictating what happens.

We are concerned about what a corner-cutting Trumpian approach would mean for democracy in the UK. But we also share people’s frustration with the glacial pace of change our democratic institutions seem to impose.

Now is the time to act – the Government could task the Modernisation Committee it set up a year ago (which so far has modernised very little) to bring forward urgent proposals to speed up a Westminster system that is simply not delivering and has barely changed in a century.

It could start by considering areas of cross-party and public consensus and identifying ways to fasttrack legislation.

If we can’t find a way out of this legislative quagmire and fail to tackle foot-dragging inertia, the door will be left open for any chainsaw-wielding autocrat who sees guardrails as something to be smashed or ignored.