Author: bang7

Rylan Clark has opened up about the emotional reason he and his mum, Linda, won’t be taking their beloved TV duo beyond Celebrity Gogglebox — despite fans pleading for them to front a show of their own.

The pair, who’ve captured hearts since joining Gogglebox in 2019, recently announced their return to the Channel 4 series. Their warm, hilarious dynamic has made them fan favourites, with many campaigning for a travel show or spin-off.

But speaking to the Daily Star, Rylan revealed: “We’ve been offered hundreds of things… but she’s just not well enough to do it.”

Linda suffers from severe Crohn’s disease, a chronic inflammatory bowel condition, and previously battled skin cancer in 2021. While she continues to appear with her son on Celebrity Gogglebox and occasional segments on his YouTube channel and BBC Radio 2 show, anything beyond that would be too demanding.

“Gogglebox is enough for us,” Rylan shared. “She feels comfortable because we’re just sat in my kitchen.”

The former X Factor star added a humorous twist when recalling a moment Linda showed up unexpectedly during one of his dates — admitting he now tracks her movements via his phone.

Despite the laughs, fans were moved by the bittersweet update. While their future may not involve a full series, Rylan and Linda’s short but meaningful screen time continues to bring joy — and sometimes tears — to viewers.

Strictly Come Dancing’s La Voix has broke her silence on cynical fans’ conspiracy theory that she faked her injury to get out of performing this week on spin-off show It Takes Two.

On Tuesday, it was revealed that the Drag Race star, 45, real name Christopher Dennis, was forced to drop out of the upcoming Blackpool special this weekend after suffering an injury.

While chatting with Janette Manrara, 42, alongside his dance partner Aljaž Škorjanec, 35, on the popular spin-off on Thursday, La Voix said: ‘This has been ongoing since the foxtrot.

‘I felt a little niggle in my foot, hence comments about me being flat-footed. I was thinking this will be fine, but it got gradually worse.

‘Until, on Saturday, we had to change shoes. I couldn’t wear heels. I had to wear those awful flat shoes.

‘We tried on Monday and it was really clear I was struggling, in pain, so we decided to be professional and call this, hoping with some rest I can be back.’

Strictly Come Dancing’s La Voix has broke her silence on the conspiracy theory about why she REALLY dropped out of show and also shared an injury update on It Takes Two earlier this week

While chatting with Janette Manrara, 42, alongside his dance partner Aljaž Škorjanec, 35, on the popular spin-off earlier this week, La Voix opened up about the injury

A day later La Voix took to Instagram to share an update with fans.

She said: ‘Good morning my darlings.

‘As I’m looking on social media and everyone is on their way to Blackpool, I am off for an MRI scan to see what is actually going on with my foot.

‘I have a bone bruise, which is basically from the repetition of being in the heels and it’s on where my toe joins my foot.

‘It’s like a deep bone bruise, which basically if I keep working on could become a stress fracture.

‘Which obviously means a broken foot which is six to eight weeks off my foot in a boot.

‘Which would be awful, so luckily they’ve caught it up before it has got to that stage.

‘And as I said on It Takes Two to the physio team, the whole of the BBC Strictly team have been amazing.

La Voix said: ‘This has been ongoing since the foxtrot. ‘I felt a little niggle in my foot, hence comments about me being flat-footed. I was thinking this will be fine, but it got gradually worse’

‘I’ve had MRIs, I’ve had X-rays, I’ve had physio, and that’s all carrying on today.

‘So I’ve got my very attractive boot on and I’m basically just icing and keeping my foot elevated and resting as much as I can.’

Luckily La Voix and dance partner Aljaž will be able to continue in the competition due to the show rules.

It’s this loophole in the competition that some fans accused La Voix of taking advantage of, with one complaining: ‘Well that’s one way to avoid the dance off… doesn’t seem fair to me.’

Another echoed: ‘Probs being harsh but seems like they reward you for getting injured if you automatically sail through.’

While a third jeered: ‘And just when you were favourite to go next… hmmmm.’

On Tuesday it was reported that she was ‘devastated and heartbroken’ after being advised by doctors to rest and focus on recovery.

Speaking in a statement, the Drag Race star said: ‘It is with immense sadness that I have to withdraw from this weekend’s Strictly Come Dancing shows in Blackpool.

‘Due to an injury, I’ve been advised that I’m unable to perform, and my heart truly breaks knowing I won’t be dancing in such an iconic venue.

‘Aljaž and I have worked incredibly hard, and we were so excited to share our routine with everyone.

‘I am devastated not to be joining the rest of the cast on that famous dancefloor, but my focus now is on recovery. I’ll be cheering on all the amazing couples this weekend.’

Luckily La Voix and dance partner Aljaž will be able to continue in the competition due to the show rules

‘In line with the rules of Strictly Come Dancing, La Voix and Aljaž will receive a bye through to next week when it is hoped they will be able to dance again.

‘We wish La Voix the very best for a speedy recovery.’

Strictly Come Dancing will continue this weekend from Blackpool’s Tower Ballroom with six competing couples.

La Voix and their professional partner Aljaž Škorjanec closed last week’s show with their Couple’s Choice.

They performed to ‘Don’t Rain On My Parade’ by Barbra Streisand.

Once again the judges ‘loved it’, praising the performer’s stage presence before marking a respectable 33 out of 40.

Ahead of the performance La Voix left viewers emotional as she tearfully opened up about her beloved mother’s recent death.

The TV personality said her ‘world had gone’ in a moment following the ‘unexpected’ passing.

Ahead of her performance with pro partner Aljaž the entertainer paid a visit to ‘immensely supportive’ father Richard, who previously appeared with her on RuPaul‘s Drag Race UK, as they reflected on the recent loss.

Choking back tears, she said: ‘My mum was the same as my dad, equally supportive, she was there at every single show. I lost her in April this year so its only what 7/8 months.

‘I did a massive West End show in London and she wasn’t well and I remember I’d gone from 1500 people clapping and cheering to the next day, just your world’s gone.’

Elsewhere, Strictly Come Dancing fans were left concerned after Vicky Pattison and pro partner Kai Widdrington were absent from It Takes Two on Monday.

The reality star, 38, became the seventh celebrity booted from the show on Sunday and missed a place in this week’s Blackpool special after losing the dreaded dance-off against EastEnders‘ Balvinder Sopal, 46, and Julian Caillon, 30.

Strictly’s latest evictee always appear on spin-off It Takes Two every Monday to discuss their exit and time in the competition, but this week host Fleur East revealed Vicky and Kai were not there.

She said: ‘This weekend we sadly said goodbye to Vicky and Kai. They can’t be with us tonight but will be joining us later on in the week.’

Following Fleur’s announcement fans rushed to X asking: ”No Vicky & Kai on It Takes Two tonight, hope thinks are ok’: ‘Where are Vicky and Kai?’: ‘Unusual to not have the departed couple on It Takes Two of a Monday, legit can’t remember this occurring before’: Wonder why the last minute change and no Vicky.’

Vicky went on to appear on the show on Wednesday 19 November.

Meanwhile, Strictly Come Dancing is set to make history with a brand new format from the end of November that will challenge the remaining couples.

Instant Dance will see each couple pick a dance style at random from ones they have learnt in the competition so far.

They will then be played their accompanying music and – after a frantic dash through wardrobe to select and change into their costumes – each couple will have just 10 seconds on the countdown clock to decide exactly how they’re going to dance it.

Once all six Strictly couples have danced, the judges will rank them and award their extra marks accordingly.

Then, a maximum of six marks will be awarded to the couple whose Instant Dance performance impressed them the most, right down to one point for the couple whose dance impressed them the least.

Head judge Shirley Ballas said: ‘Instant Dance has the power to change everything for our couples, and will challenge them in ways they have never been challenged before.

‘With standards so incredibly high this year and the competition so close, there’s a lot resting on it.

‘The dance styles, costumes and music might not be revealed until the night, but what we can be sure of right now is that it’s going to be a whole lot of fun. I cannot wait!’

The exciting new format will take place towards the end of the month – Saturday 29 to be exact – once all six remaining couples have danced in the usual way.

Strictly Come Dancing airs Saturdays and Sundays on BBC One and is available to stream on iPlayer.

Princess Andre has opened up about the extraordinary bond she shares with her stepmother Emily, crediting her with creating a “safe and happy home” after years of instability.

The 18-year-old daughter of Katie Price and Peter Andre revealed in her ITV series The Princess Diaries that she often turns to Emily for advice and support, describing her as the “perfect stepmother.” Princess admitted that she “saw things kids shouldn’t” during her childhood and is still healing from her mother’s “dark times.”

Emily, who married Peter in 2015, stepped into the role of caregiver when Princess was just three. Balancing her medical studies with family life, she became a constant source of stability for both Princess and her brother Junior. A family insider explained that Princess has “deep respect and admiration” for Emily, adding: “She knows how hard it must have been, but Emily never showed it. Now Princess sees just how special she is.”

On the show, Princess confided in Emily about her heartbreak after a recent breakup, telling her she couldn’t “picture being with anyone else.” Emily reassured her, saying it was important to “spend time on yourself” and reminded her: “You’re a big catch.”

The star also revealed she sought counselling, explaining she “couldn’t just go to dad” because her parents “don’t like each other.” Reflecting on her mum, Princess said: “She’s unpredictable and lives life like she doesn’t care. I love that about her, but deep down I cry about it.”

Despite the emotional past, Princess now enjoys a thriving career, signing lucrative beauty and fashion deals, with TV bosses keen to push her career further — away from her mother’s controversies.

Last year, Princess summed up her feelings in one simple sentence: “She’s the perfect stepmother. I couldn’t have asked for better.”

Rachel Reeves was ripped apart by GB News presenter Ben Leo.

Rachel Reeves was torn apart on GB News

GB News presenter Ben Leo erupted into a fierce rant as he took aim at Rachel Reeves ahead of her Autumn budget. It came after Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch accused the Chancellor of cowardice following her refusal to confirm whether she will raise taxes on workers.

The host said: “I’m a bit bored of Rachel Reeves. She’s expected to freeze income tax thresholds for two more years in Wednesday’s big budget but it’s a move critics say will push hundreds of thousands into higher tax bands known as a stealth tax.” Guest Steve N. Allen admitted he was confused by the government’s constant back and forth on tax rises, declaring: “Anything could happen.”

He added: “My theory is, we drivers are being absolutely milked like cash cows. At some point I will wake up and most of the country will be painted like a box junction and if you even move it will be a hundred quid. It’s the only way we’re being financed these days is by fines.”

A furious Ben weighed in: “I’m not going to start a rant because I’ll be here until five in the morning. But we are taxed on everything. You’re taxed when you buy milk. You’re taxed when you raise money or invest money. You’re taxed when you die. You’re taxed when you buy a house. It’s a joke!”

In a brutal swipe to the government, Hilary quipped: “You’ve got to fund the illegal migrants somehow.”

Letting out a huge sigh, Ben admitted: “I know. That’s what makes it even more infuriating,” as he scrunched up a piece of paper.

Ben Leo ripped into the Chancellor ahead of her Autumn budget (Image: GB News)

Tory leader Kemi Badenoch says Chancellor Rachel Reeves should have the “balls” to admit she has broken the Labour manifesto if she freezes income tax thresholds in Wednesday’s Budget. Badenoch argued that if Reeves fails to acknowledge this as a violation of the pledge not to raise taxes on working people, she will be seen as a “coward” for avoiding accountability.

Mrs Badenoch said: “Rachel Reeves has claimed that critics of her chaotic economic mismanagement are ‘mansplaining’. Well let me say this: if she freezes income tax thresholds she will, according to her own words in her own Budget speech last year, be breaching the Labour manifesto.

“And she should have the balls to stand up on Wednesday and admit that to British taxpayers. Anything less will confirm that she is a coward who can’t take responsibility for her actions.”

MPs have voted down Nigel  Farage’s attempt to introduce a Ten-Minute Rule Bill to have the UK leave the European Convention on Human Rights.

The vote was not on the legislation itself, but on the principle of bringing forward a Bill.

Following a debate, MPs voted against the motion by 154 to 96

The Reform UK leader described the bill as “the unfinished business” of Brexit and argued that it would restore Parliament’s power over UK law.

Citing a series of cases in which British rule has been overridden by the Strasbourg court, Mr Farage was making his point while MPs sought to shout him down.

Liberal Democrat MPs were particularly loud, and Mr Farage quipped he had “never seen so many of them”, a remark which only served to draw a louder response.

The Reform UK head honcho repeatedly slapped down MPs, telling them not to “shake their heads” and asking “what is wrong” with them as he made his point.

Liberal Democrats leader Ed Davey was able to deliver a response upon the conclusion of Mr Farage’s statement, in which he accused the Reform UK man of being deeply “un-British”.

“This is about sovereignty”, said Mr Farage.

“It’s about our voters being able to choose the future course and direction of our country. This is why this matters.”

This Liveblog has now been closed.

Rachel Reeves admits to breaking housing laws after renting out family home

Rachel Reeves has admitted to breaking housing laws after renting out her family home without a licence after entering Downing Street.

The Chancellor has referred herself to the independent ethics adviser.

She has also informed Sir Keir Starmer of her mistake.

Ms Reeves failed to obtain a rental licence when she placed her family home in Dulwich on the rental market last year, as she moved into Number 11 Downing Street with her family in July, according to the Mail.

Chris Philp denies Tories they have thrown out plans to toughen up indefinite leave to remain

The Conservatives have denied they are scrapping plans to toughen the rules that allow migrants to settle permanently in the UK.

A spokesman for Tory leader Kemi Badenoch signalled to journalists on Wednesday that proposals that could result in migrants settled in the UK having their indefinite leave to remain (ILR) revoked retrospectively were no longer Tory policy.

But shadow home secretary Chris Philp later insisted this did not mean all of the party’s ILR plans had been thrown out, after Reform UK seized upon it.

“Contrary to reports, there has been no change to our ILR policy set out in February,” Mr Philp wrote on social media on Wednesday night.

“We further updated our policy at conference to make clear foreign citizens (including those with ILR) should not be able to claim benefits, to address the issue of people with ILR being a burden on other taxpayers.”

Reform’s rise has been dizzying, but the polls hide a landmine – and the party may have already stood on it

The rise of Reform since last year’s general election has been remarkable.

Its current standing in the polls is, on average, now double the 15 per cent share the party won in 2024. It has been in the lead for more than six months. Some polling suggests the party could be on course for an overall majority if an election were held now

Never has a party other than Conservative or Labour been ahead in the polls for so long – not even the Liberal/SDP Alliance at the height of its popularity in 1981/2. Reform is posing the biggest ever challenge to Britain’s traditional two-party system.

Yet, there is still a key question facing the party.

Former Reform UK councillor accuses party of ack of ‘human decency’

A former Reform UK councillor, Bill Barrett, has claimed the party shows a lack of “human decency” and is worried about how they treat power.

Bill Barrett was one of 57 Reform UK councillors elected to Kent County Council (KCC) at the local elections in May, overturning a 30-year Tory majority.

Last week, he was expelled from Reform UK for “undermining” the party’s interests in an email from its headquarters.

He was one of four councillors suspended from the party following a video meeting of KCC leader Linden Kemkaren, during which she swore and shouted at her members.

Mr Barrett said: “They just basically suspended everyone and then expelled everyone on individual points that had nothing to do with the Guardian leak.”

He later added: “They still have absolutely no idea who released the information to The Guardian and the truth of it is that none of us do.”

The newly independent councillor was extremely critical of the Reform UK hierarchy in Kent and at a national level, and cast doubt on their ability to govern effectively.

Mr Barrett said: “If they’re prepared to treat each other in this manner, how are they going to treat power and how are they going to treat the public?

“What’s going to happen is they’re basically going to get into power and they’re going to say, ‘this is the way it’s going to be’, that’s exactly what Kemkaran does at KCC.”

Lib Dems blasts ‘outrageous’ payment to s3x offender: ‘Public trust was completely trashed’

The Liberal Democrats have described a £500 payment to migrant sex attacker, Hadush Kebatu, as “outrageous”.

The party’s home affairs spokesperson, Max Wilkinson, said: “People will rightly be angry. Public trust was completely trashed after Kebatu’s wrongful release and now this.

“This is outrageous. We need to fix our fundamentally broken immigration system.”

It follows Home Office confirmation that a migrant sex attacker, Hadush Kebatu, was paid £500 to leave the UK.

Kebatu, who was convicted of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl and a woman in Epping, was mistakenly set free on Friday.

After a two-day police manhunt, he was arrested in the capital on Sunday morning.

​Reform UK has leapfrogged Scottish Labour into second place as voters flock from Keir Starmer to Nigel Farage, poll shows

Reform UK has leapfrogged Scottish Labour into second place ahead of next year’s election as one third of Scots feel negatively about the country’s future, a new poll suggests.

A study conducted by Survation for the IPPR Scotland think tank ahead of its conference on Wednesday spoke to 2,043 people between September 22 and October 14, finding the SNP maintains its lead in Scotland.

According to the poll, John Swinney’s party retains 34 per cent support in the constituency vote and 29 per cent on the list.

Nigel Farage-led Reform has moved to 22 per cent and 20 per cent respectively, ahead of Labour on 18 per cent and 17 per cent.

The Scottish Conservatives are fourth in the poll, with 10 per cent and 12 per cent support, slightly ahead of the Liberal Democrats on 8 per cent and 10 per cent.

Support for the Scottish Greens is put at 7 per cent and 10 per cent.

The bulk of Reform support, according to the poll, has come from Labour, with 34 per cent saying they will vote for the party, having backed Sir Keir Starmer last year.

Nigel Farage’s speech on ECHR ‘totally misrepresents’ convention – Ed Davey

Ed Davey said Nigel Farage’s speech on the ECHR ‘totally misrepresents’ the convention

Responding to Nigel Farage’s proposals to leave the ECHR, Sir Ed Davey said: “The speech we have just heard totally misrepresents the European Convention and the proposer’s failure to mention the huge benefits and rights the European Convention has brought to millions of British people says it all.

“For those attracted by the argument we have just heard, let me give them one strong reason to think again.

“Russia, under Vladamir Putin, is the only country to have withdrawn from the European Convention on Human Rights. Maybe that is what attracts the honourable gentleman for Clacton to it – after all he said that Putin is the world leader he most admires.”

Nigel Farage: ‘ECHR is completely outdated’

Presenting his 10 minute Bill in the House of Commons, Nigel Farage said: “We do not believe, I do not believe that it is right that when it comes to controlling our borders, when it comes to who should be able legally to live, work and settle in this country or indeed who should not be allowed to stay in this country, for this to be under the remit firstly of judges in Strasbourg who by the way are jurists…and secondly under the political control of judges in this country who now can make their own interpretation of what we have understood for many, many years to be British common law.”

He added: “We go on of course to horrendous stories, particularly under Article 8 – the right to a family life. Well – whose family? The families of British people?

“Or the families of those who have come into Britain in some cases illegally and then been waved through. Some of it is disgusting beyond belief.”

He went on to say the ECHR was “completely outdated”.

Nigel Farage heckled while presenting 10 minute rule bill in House of Commons

Nigel Farage was interrupted while presenting a 10 minute rule bill in the House of Commons

Nigel Farage was interrupted while presenting a 10 minute rule bill in the House of Commons.

As he was speaking about the European Convention on Human Rights, the words “Putin’s Pal” were shouted in the chamber.

Mr Farage responded: “Marvellous to see the intellectual levels of debate in this place it really is.”

Reform’s benefit plans are ‘poor copy-and-paste’ of the Conservatives’, party says

The Tories have accused Reform UK of creating a “poor copy-and-paste” of their benefit proposals.

Responding to Reform’s announcement earlier today, Kemi Badenoch’s spokesman said: “We’ve come out with a full plan, what they’ve come out with looks like a poor copy-and-paste of our plan.”

Keir Starmer blasts ‘toxic division’ from opposition

The Prime Minister said: “I though that the King and the Pope praying together was an incredible message to the world and very powerful – if we all work together we can actually bring people together not withstanding the very many difficulties and challenges that poses around the world and in our own country.

“It is why as far as we can we should be uniting on national patriotic renewal in this country rather than the toxic division we see on some of the benches opposite.”

Reform would be ‘absolute disaster’ for Britain’s defence – Keir Starmer

Sir Keir Starmer has taken another swipe at Reform UK during PMQ’s, saying the party would be an “absolute disaster” for Britain’s defence

He said: “For Nato allies, the conflict in Ukraine and dealing with Russian aggression is the number one issue.

“And that is why I have to say the Reform party would be an absolute disaster for our defence.

“We are a trusted member of Nato. We would not be a trusted member if we were Nato-friendly.

“We are leading the Coalition of the Willing, giving security and comfort to 30 other countries.

“That would collapse under Reform because they are Putin-friendly and it would be a real threat to our defence and our security.”

Kemi Badenoch accuses Keir Starmer of being ‘too weak to control spending’

Kemi Badenoch has accused Keir Starmer of being ‘too weak’ to control spending

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has accused Keir Starmer of being “too weak to control spending” during a fiery exchange at PMQ’s.

She said: “The fact he has to stand there and make stuff up shows what kind of Prime Minister he is.

“We had an itemised list of £47billion – £23billion was on welfare spending which I asked him to work with us to cut.

“He refuses to do so. All he knows how to do is tax, tax, tax.”

“He is raising taxes because he is too weak to control spending. He is blaming us, he is blaming the OBR, last week they were blaming Brexit. Is it the truth that with this Prime Minister it is always someone else’s fault?”

PM: ‘Conservatives won’t be trusted on the economy for generations’

Sir Keir Starmer said Labour would take “no lecture or advice” from the Conservatives on the economy.

Speaking at PMQ’s, the Prime Minister said: ” We will take no lecture or advice from [the Conservatives] on the economy – they won’t be trust on the economy for generations to come.

“That is why at our Budget I can be clear there will be no return to austerity – that is what broke the country. No return to the instability of their mad borrowing spree.”

Keir Starmer refuses to give answer on if Government plans to increase ‘working people’ taxes

When asked by Kemi Badenoch if the Government would stand by its prior pledges not to increase income tax, national insurance or VAT, Sir Keir Starmer replied: “Retail sales are higher than inspection, inflation is lower than expected, growth has been upgraded this year and the UK stock market is at an all-time high.

“The Budget is on November 26 and we will lay out our plans but I can tell the House now that we will build a stronger economy, we will cut NHS waiting lists and deliver a better future for our country.”

Sir Keir Starmer takes swipe at ‘Putin-friendly Reform party’ during PMQs

Sir Keir Starmer has taken a swipe at Reform during PMQ’s .

Sir Keir Starmer has taken a swipe at Reform during PMQ’s this afternoon, describing the party as “Putin-friendly”.

The Prime Minister said : “This Government has secured the biggest deal to manufacture typhoon fighter jets in this country for almost 20 years.

“We secured that deal because the UK is back as a leading and trusting member of Nato. A timely reminder for the Green Party whose policy is to take us out of Nato, the Putin-friendly Reform party who would have no standing with Nato and for the leading of the opposition – you don’t win Nato deals by not turning up to Nato meetings.”

Labour cracks down on four-day weeks as local councils slammed for wasting taxpayers’ money

The Government is set to crack down on four-day weeks as councils have been accused of “wasting taxpayer money”.

Housing Secretary Steve Reed has written to South Cambridgeshire District Council, which became the first local authority to introduce the policy, saying its services have “worsened” since it was put in place.

The four-day week model sees workers at the council receive 100 per cent of their pay for around 85 per cent of their contracted hours.

In a letter seen by the The Telegraph, Mr Reed expressed “deep disappointment” with the authority’s conduct.

He said: “I am therefore seeking assurance about the arrangements your council has in place to consider the impacts of your policy, and that value for money for residents is being delivered.

“In particular, I would like to understand how the council is seeking to mitigate the impact to those services which have worsened over the course of the four-day working week trial.”

He requested council chiefs meet with his officials in the coming weeks.

A Government source told The Telegraph “wasting taxpayer money in this fashion is completely unacceptable”.

Zia Yusuf: ‘Britain has become food bank for the world’

Zia Yusuf said Britain has “sadly become a food bank for the world” as he announced Reform’s planned crackdown on Benefits.

He said: “Britain has sadly become a food bank for the world.

“A lot of the data around the cost of foreign nationals on welfare is hidden – the Government doesn’t disclose it. We do have some information for example around Universal Credit and that is already staggering.”

‘We need to get more people back to work’ – Zia Yusuf

Speaking at the press conference, Reform’s Head of Policy Zia Yusuf said: “There are no doubt many people in this country who do have disabilities and do need assistance rom the taxpayer.

“Our proposals continue to protect those people and ensure that they continue to receive those payments. But we have to again look at the extraordinary growth in Pip claims which are now up to 1,300 per day that is up from 500 per day in 2019.

“We know we need to get more people back to work so what our proposals are here at Reform are to simultaneously fix the incentives to not work and fix the incentives to get people to work.”

Reform would scrap Pip payments for those with ‘anxiety disorders’, says Lee Anderson

Lee Anderson has revealed Reform’s plans to scrap Pip payments for people with anxiety disorders which he claims would save £3.2billion per year.

Speaking at the press conference, Mr Anderson said: “A Reform UK Government would fully remove those with anxiety disorders but not serious psychiatric disorders from Pip eligibility.

“This would save the Exchequer £3.2billion per annum based on last year’s figures and we will also make sure that every single assessment is done face-to-face.”

Lee Anderson says he has had ‘persistent sadness’ since Labour came into power as he discusses benefit payments at press conference

Lee Anderson is discussing Reform’s plans for Pip payments at a press confernece

Reform MP Lee Anderson was met with laughter in the crowd of the press conference after saying he has had “persistent sadness” since Labour came to power.

He said: “Over 1.4 million people in this country claim Pip for some sort of psychiatric disorder in the UK.

“A third of those are for mixed anxiety disorders, depressive disorders and anxiety disorders. The symptoms of these disorders can include persistent worrying, sadness, irritability, difficulty concentrating and changes in sleep and appetite.

“Who is this room hasn’t suffered from any of the above symptoms. Persistent sadness? Tell me about it. I have had persistent sadness since July last year with this Labour Government.”

Zia Yusuf begins third Reform press conference in three days and declares ‘Britain is not working’

Zia Yusuf said Britain is ‘broken’ as he introduced the press conference

Zia Yusuf has introduced Reform’s third press conference in three days.

The party’s Head of Policy opened the conference by saying: “It’s clear Britain is broken, Britain needs reform.

He said: “Britain is not working and one of the things that is not working is the enormous accumulation and growth in Pip (personal independent payments) in this country.

“Reform will have sweeping welfare reforms that we will announce in the coming months and years and you can expect Nigel Farage’s Prime Ministership to transform welfare in this country.”

The spotlight was blindingly bright at the 2025 Singapore Grand Prix, but the real story was unfolding in the dark, sweltering confines of the cockpits. For the first time, the FIA officially declared a “hot race,” triggering a new protocol designed to protect the gladiators of the asphalt from the debilitating effects of extreme heat. The solution seemed elegant and overdue: a mandatory implementation of mini air-conditioning systems and advanced cooling vests. It was a move hailed as a victory for driver safety in an era where climate and calendar shifts have made racing conditions increasingly hostile.

However, as the checkered flag waved and exhausted drivers pulled themselves from their machinery, the feedback was scathing. The systems had failed. Drivers like Charles Leclerc reported that the relief was fleeting—lasting a mere five laps before the technology became nothing more than a warm, heavy burden. How could a sport that represents the pinnacle of automotive engineering fail so spectacularly at something as fundamental as cooling? The answer, as it turns out, is not a tale of technological incompetence, but rather a revealing glimpse into the ruthless, uncompromising psyche of Formula 1 engineering.

The Regulation That Backfired

To understand the failure, one must first look at the rulebook. The FIA, anticipating the physical toll of the Singapore heat, recommended the use of these cooling systems. To prevent teams from opting out to save weight—the holy grail of F1 performance—regulators introduced a penalty. If a team chose not to install the cooling system, they would be forced to carry half a kilogram of ballast. The intention was clear: level the playing field so that safety did not come with a performance penalty. In theory, every car would carry the weight, so every driver might as well enjoy the cooling.

It was a sound logic that crumbled upon contact with the reality of the grid. While the weight penalty was neutralized, the aerodynamic penalty was not. And in Formula 1, aerodynamics is king.

The Five-Lap Mirage

The disconnect between the FIA’s intentions and the teams’ execution became apparent almost immediately. The cooling system, a sophisticated assembly of pumps and exchangers packaged in a metal box, requires a basic input to function: air. Just like the air conditioning unit in a road car or a house, it needs an intake to draw in air and an outlet to expel the heat. Without a steady stream of airflow, the system cannot exchange thermal energy; it simply saturates and stops working.

This is where the drivers’ nightmare began. Reports from the track indicated that the vests worked perfectly during the initial laps. The cool fluid circulated, keeping core body temperatures manageable. But as the race settled into its rhythm, the efficiency plummeted. Leclerc and others found themselves carrying a system that had become a heat sink, retaining warmth rather than dissipating it. The failure wasn’t in the vest itself—it works flawlessly in other racing series like IndyCar or WEC—but in how it was integrated into the delicate ecosystem of an F1 car.

The Engineering Paradox

To understand why this happened, you have to think like an F1 engineer. Their job is not to make the driver comfortable; their job is to make the car fast. Every millimeter of the car’s surface is sculpted to direct air for downforce and speed. Cutting a hole in the bodywork for an air inlet creates drag. It disrupts the meticulously curated airflow that generates grip.

When handed the mandate to install the AC system, teams faced a dilemma. They had to install the box to avoid the ballast penalty, but they were under no strict obligation to make it work efficiently if it meant sacrificing aerodynamic performance. The result? Malicious compliance.

Engineers designed “super small inlets” for the cooling systems. They provided just enough of an opening to say the system was functional, but nowhere near enough to sustain it during the intense heat loads of a Grand Prix. They treated the cooling system as a parasite on the car’s aerodynamics. They minimized the drag by choking the airflow.

The Vicious Cycle of Failure

The consequence of this engineering choice was a predictable thermal runaway. With tiny inlets, the mass flow of air was insufficient. As the system worked to extract heat from the driver, that heat had nowhere to go. The unit overheated, and the cooling effect vanished.

This created a frustrating cycle of blame. The FIA mandated the system for safety. The teams, loathing the aerodynamic disadvantage, integrated it poorly. The system failed mid-race. The drivers and teams then pointed to the failure as proof that the technology is “useless” or “doesn’t work in F1,” despite it being a standard, functional component in other categories.

It highlights a fundamental tension in the sport. Engineers are incentivized to push the limits, often to the detriment of the human inside the machine. The teams prioritized the undisturbed flow of air over the bodywork above the thermal regulation of the pilot. They decided, effectively, that it was better to have a slightly cleaner aerodynamic profile for the whole race than to have a comfortable driver.

Sweating for Speed

The implications of this failure are significant as we look toward the future. The system is slated to become fully mandatory next year. The logic suggests that if everyone must have it, teams should eventually converge on a design that actually works, utilizing intakes large enough to sustain cooling.

However, the lesson from Singapore 2025 is that teams will always choose suffering over seconds. If there is a loophole—if they can get away with a non-functional system to save a fraction of drag—they will take it. The “drama” of the cooling vests is not about bad tech; it’s about a culture that views the driver’s comfort as a tradable commodity.

As the paddock packs up and heads to the next venue, the question remains: will the FIA step in to regulate the size of the inlets, forcing teams to make the system functional? Or will we see a repeat of Singapore, where the world’s best drivers are left to sweat it out, carrying dead weight in a car designed to suffocate the very system meant to save them?

In the end, the F1 engineers proved their brilliance once again, finding a way to neutralize a rule they didn’t like. But in doing so, they left their drivers boiling in the cockpit, proving that in Formula 1, speed is the only metric that truly matters—even if the cost is the physical limits of the human body.

A chill has settled over the Red Bull Formula 1 team, a cold front that has nothing to do with the weather at the racetrack and everything to do with the icy tension gripping the organization’s highest echelons. Far removed from the roar of the V6 hybrid engines and the practiced, polished smiles seen during media appearances in the paddock, a much deeper and more destructive conflict is unfolding. It is a war defined by fractured alliances, profound mistrust, and a bitter battle over who bears the burden of blame for a season that has seen the once-dominant champions falter.

At the very center of this brewing storm stands Oliver Mintzlaff, the CEO of Red Bull, whose recent intervention has shattered the facade of unity. In a move that has sent shockwaves through the sport, Mintzlaff has quietly but forcefully stepped in to dismantle the incendiary claims made by the team’s veteran senior advisor, Helmut Marko. The situation has escalated from whispered rumors to a full-blown internal crisis, threatening to undo a legacy built over nearly two decades.

The catalyst for this public unraveling was a series of pointed accusations leveled by Helmut Marko against Team Principal Christian Horner. In a sport where unity is often the difference between winning and losing, Marko publicly pointed the finger at Horner, holding him directly responsible for Red Bull’s struggling performance this season and, perhaps more damagingly, for the unraveling situation surrounding Sergio Perez. These were not vague critiques; they were precise, damaging strikes aimed at the leadership of the team.

When Marko’s words hit the public sphere, they landed like a lit match dropped into dry grass. The speculation ignited instantly. Was the team tearing itself apart from within? Was the leadership structure that delivered multiple world championships collapsing under the weight of its own internal politics? The narrative spun quickly, painting a picture of a house divided, with Horner isolated and under siege from his own longtime ally.

However, Oliver Mintzlaff has refused to let that narrative stand unchallenged. Pushing back firmly and deliberately, the CEO issued a rebuttal that suggests this is far more than a simple disagreement between colleagues. “I don’t agree with Marko’s statements,” Mintzlaff said. His words were measured, devoid of the hysteria that often accompanies F1 drama, yet they were heavy with implication. It was a clear signal from the top: the blame game would not be tolerated, and the history of the team would not be rewritten to suit a convenient narrative of failure.

Mintzlaff’s defense of Horner was rooted deeply in the history of the team, a reminder to the world—and perhaps to Marko himself—of what has been achieved. He invoked the long-standing partnership between Christian Horner and Helmut Marko, a duo that has worked side by side since 2005. For more than two decades, they have shared success, triumph, and mutual reliance. Together, they built a dynasty from the ashes of Jaguar Racing, forging a team that broke the hegemony of Ferrari and Mercedes. To now reduce that profound legacy to a petty squabble and a narrative of blame, Mintzlaff implied, is not only fundamentally unfair but deeply misleading.

Yet, behind this defense of history lies a palpable tension that feels almost theatrical in its intensity. Mintzlaff suggested that Marko’s remarks might have been taken out of context, twisted into weapons aimed squarely at Horner’s reputation. But in the same breath, he offered a darker interpretation of events. In this telling, the accusations hurled by Marko are less about the objective truth of the team’s performance and more about survival.

The implication is stark: as pressure mounts and difficult decisions loom regarding the team’s future direction, individuals are scrambling to ensure they emerge unscathed. “I can’t say anything negative about Christian,” Mintzlaff emphasized, making a point to note Horner’s immense and undeniable contribution to Red Bull’s meteoric rise. However, even this defense carried a warning, a “darker undertone” that no one in the organization could afford to ignore.

“Even legends,” Mintzlaff admitted, are not immune when results decline. It was a moment of brutal honesty amidst the political maneuvering. When performance falters, companies are forced to confront uncomfortable realities. Sentimental attachments to the past cannot save a team that is failing in the present. “Decisions must be made. No one is untouchable forever.” While this could be read as a warning to Horner, in the context of Mintzlaff’s other comments, it rebounds just as sharply onto Marko.

Indeed, the sharpest shadow in this saga falls over Helmut Marko himself. According to sources close to the unfolding situation, his public criticism appears less like an honest analysis of the car’s deficiencies or the driver lineup’s struggles, and more like a calculated effort to protect his own standing. By shifting the blame entirely onto Horner, Marko seemed to be attempting to rewrite the story of the season before it could be written for him.

Cruelly, for Marko, this effort appears to be backfiring. Rather than clearing his name or solidifying his position as the wise elder statesman of the team, his comments have cast significant doubt on his credibility. The irony is palpable. In trying to distance himself from the team’s struggles, he has drawn attention to his own role in the discord. Rumors are now swirling with renewed vigor about his desire to maintain influence within Formula 1, portraying him not as a purely objective advisor, but as a political player fighting to keep his grip on power.

In a sport where perception can be just as powerful as lap times, the damage inflicted by this public spat may prove irreversible. Trust, once broken, is notoriously difficult to rebuild, especially in a high-stakes environment like Formula 1 where every decision is scrutinized by millions. The relationship between Horner and Marko, once the bedrock of Red Bull’s success, now looks fractured beyond repair.

As the Formula 1 season grinds on, the real battle at Red Bull is no longer being fought solely on Sundays. It is being fought in boardrooms, in the media, and in whispered conversations behind closed doors. The atmosphere within the team grows heavier by the day, thick with suspicion and unresolved emotion. Every glance, every quote, and every silence is analyzed for meaning.

One truth has become abundantly clear through Mintzlaff’s intervention: this crisis is no longer just about the performance of the RB20 or the points standings. It is about legacy. It is about loyalty. And ultimately, it is a ruthless game of musical chairs to see who will be left standing when the silence finally breaks.

Mintzlaff has drawn a line in the sand, signaling that the corporate leadership is watching and is willing to intervene. The era of unchecked power struggles may be coming to an end, replaced by a cold, corporate reality where results matter more than reputation. For Red Bull Racing, the team that defined an era of dominance, the question is no longer just whether they can win the next race, but whether they can survive the war within their own walls.

On December 12, 2025, the General Assembly of the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA) concluded with a result that was as predictable as it was controversial: Mohammed Ben Sulayem was re-elected for a second four-year term as President. There was no dramatic vote count, no last-minute campaigning, and, most notably, no opposition. To the casual observer, this smooth sailing might suggest a unified federation rallying behind a beloved leader. However, the reality, buried beneath layers of bureaucratic procedure and high-stakes maneuvering, is far more complex—and far more calculating.

For months leading up to this moment, the narrative surrounding the FIA was one of turmoil, not stability. The governing body of global motorsport appeared to be fracturing from the inside out. A steady stream of high-profile departures had painted a picture of an administration in crisis. Key figures such as Steve Nielsen (Sporting Director), Tim Goss (Technical Director), Natalie Robyn (CEO), and Deborah Mayer (President of the Women in Motorsport Commission) had all vacated their posts, often abruptly.

The turmoil reached a fever pitch in late 2024 with the dismissal of Niels Wittich, the Formula 1 Race Director, and the dramatic sacking of senior steward Tim Mayer. Mayer, the son of McLaren co-founder Teddy Mayer and a fixture in motorsport officiating for decades, did not go quietly. His exit, reportedly delivered via text message, was accompanied by allegations of “hurt feelings” and centralized power plays by the presidency. Critics, including the Grand Prix Drivers’ Association (GPDA), openly expressed frustration over issues ranging from jewelry bans to fines for swearing. By all conventional metrics of leadership—morale, staff retention, and public approval—Ben Sulayem appeared vulnerable.

So, how does a leader facing such intense internal and external headwinds secure a coronation rather than a contest? The answer lies not in winning hearts and minds, but in mastering the complex, rigid chess game of the FIA’s statutes.

The “Slate” Strategy

To understand Ben Sulayem’s victory, one must first understand the unique hurdles of an FIA presidential bid. Unlike many democratic elections where an individual runs on their own merit, an FIA presidential hopeful must propose a complete “cabinet” or list of key deputies at the time of application.

According to the statutes, a candidate must submit a slate that includes a President of the Senate, a Vice President for Automobile Mobility and Tourism, and a Vice President for Sport. But the requirement that proved fatal to any potential opposition was the mandate for Regional Vice Presidents.

A valid presidential team must include seven Vice Presidents for Sport, drawn from specific regions: Europe, the Middle East, Africa, North America, Asia-Pacific, and South America. This rule is designed to ensure global representation. However, in the 2025 election cycle, it became the ultimate weapon of exclusion.

The trap was set months before the election. Potential candidates for these Vice President roles had to apply individually to the FIA to be vetted and approved as eligible candidates for the World Motor Sport Council (WMSC). The deadline for this approval process was September 19, 2025. Once the FIA published the final list of approved candidates, the game was effectively over.

The South American Blockade

When the list of eligible candidates was released, political analysts within the paddock noticed a glaring anomaly in the South America region. There was only one name: Fabiana Ecclestone.

Fabiana Ecclestone, the Brazilian Vice President for Sport and wife of former F1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone, was the sole approved candidate eligible to fill the South American slot on a presidential ticket. This created a bottleneck of singular influence. Under FIA rules, a Vice President candidate can only appear on one presidential list. You cannot hedge your bets; you pick a horse and ride it.

Fabiana Ecclestone had already made her choice clear. In a signed support letter endorsed by all 11 motorsport presidents of South America, she pledged her loyalty to Mohammed Ben Sulayem’s re-election bid.

This move effectively checkmated any potential rival. Even if a charismatic challenger—rumors had swirled around names like David Richards or other industry titans—had wanted to run, they faced a mathematical impossibility. To run, they needed a South American Vice President. The only eligible South American was Fabiana Ecclestone. Fabiana Ecclestone was already locked into Ben Sulayem’s list.

Therefore, no other candidate could form a valid team. The “South American Wall” had been built, and the gate was locked from the inside.

A Victory of Procedure over Popularity

The brilliance of this strategy lies in its use of the procedural calendar. By the time the application window for the presidency opened in October (the 3rd to the 24th), the pool of eligible teammates had already been frozen back in September. The opposition, perhaps waiting for the right moment to announce a challenge, found themselves defeated by a deadline that had passed weeks prior.

It renders the criticisms regarding management style moot in the context of the election. Whether staff were resigning in protest or being fired for dissent ultimately did not matter for the vote. The “electorate”—the member clubs—never had to make a difficult choice between continuity and change because “change” was never allowed to appear on the ballot.

The Ecclestone Factor

The prominent role of Fabiana Ecclestone in this political drama adds a layer of historical irony. For decades, her husband Bernie Ecclestone ruled Formula 1 with an iron fist, famously navigating the shark tank of motorsport politics with wit and ruthlessness. Now, in a different era, the Ecclestone name has once again proven pivotal in deciding the leadership of the sport, albeit through the FIA’s structures rather than the commercial rights holder.

Her consolidation of the South American bloc was total. The fact that not a single other candidate from the continent was put forward—or approved—suggests a level of regional coordination that is rare in global sports governance. Whether this was due to genuine support for her work in the region or a calculated strategic alignment with the incumbent is a matter for historians. The result, however, is indisputable.

Looking Ahead: The Next Four Years

With his mandate secured in Tashkent, Mohammed Ben Sulayem enters his second term emboldened. The “unbeatable” label is now fact, not hyperbole. He has survived the storm of 2024 and emerged with his grip on power tighter than ever.

However, the challenges that plagued his first term remain. The FIA is still hemorrhaging senior talent. The relationship with Formula 1 Management (FOM) remains fraught with tension over commercial rights and regulatory control. The drivers are increasingly vocal about their dissatisfaction with what they perceive as micromanagement of their behavior.

Yet, as the delegates depart Uzbekistan, the message from the top is clear: The President is here to stay. The opposition has been outmaneuvered not on the racetrack, but in the committee rooms. For the next four years, the world of motorsport will continue to march to the beat of Mohammed Ben Sulayem’s drum—a rhythm secured by a single, unbreakable link in South America.

As the dust settles on this “election that wasn’t,” one thing is certain: In the high-speed world of Formula 1, the most dangerous moves often happen at zero miles per hour.

The dust has finally settled on what can only be described as one of the most unpredictable, chaotic, and downright thrilling seasons in Formula 1 history. As we look back at the 2025 campaign, the headlines are dominated by Lando Norris, the man who finally etched his name into the history books as the World Champion. Yet, beneath the champagne spray and the papaya-colored confetti, a fiercer debate is raging. In a season defined by fine margins, who really was the best driver? And more controversially, who let their team down the most?

The RacingNews365 team sat down to dissect a year that saw nine different drivers stand on the podium, a statistic that speaks volumes about the competitiveness of this new era. But while the record books will forever show Norris as the victor by a razor-thin two-point margin, the verdict from the paddock suggests the moral victory belongs elsewhere.

The Champion vs. The Best: A Paddock Divided

“The points don’t lie,” is the old adage, and Lando Norris undoubtedly earned his title. To finish 24 grueling Grands Prix at the top of the pile is a testament to consistency and nerve. However, when stripping away the machinery and looking purely at driver performance, the consensus shifts dramatically toward the man he dethroned: Max Verstappen.

Despite losing his crown, Verstappen’s 2025 campaign is being hailed as a masterclass in damage limitation. For the first half of the season, the Dutchman wrestled with an RB21 that was, at times, visibly inferior to the surging McLarens and Ferraris. Yet, he dragged that car into contention week after week.

“Max was faultless,” argues Lead Editor Ian Park. “Other than that one incident with George Russell in Barcelona, he didn’t put a wheel out of place.” It is a sentiment that resonates. While Norris had the machinery to win comfortably, Verstappen had to get his elbows out. He had to overdrive, improvise, and execute perfect weekends just to keep Red Bull in the hunt. The narrative is clear: Norris won the championship, but Verstappen won the argument.

Interestingly, a counter-narrative emerged for the “Best of the Rest.” George Russell’s stellar year at Mercedes—stepping up as the undisputed team leader and handling the intense speculation over his future with grace—earned him high praise. Russell’s ability to block out the noise and deliver consistent results, even as the team flirted with the idea of signing Verstappen, showcased a mental fortitude that rivals the very best.

The Hamilton Horror Show: A Legend in Decline?

If Verstappen was the hero in defeat, Lewis Hamilton has unfortunately been cast as the villain of his own story. The move to Ferrari was meant to be the fairytale swan song, the rekindling of a fire that would lead to that elusive eighth title. Instead, 2025 will go down as arguably the bleakest chapter in his illustrious career.

The stats are damning. Hamilton finished the season with a string of Q1 eliminations that left fans and pundits stunned. For a driver synonymous with one-lap pace, to be knocked out in the first qualifying session three times in a row at the business end of the season is inexplicable.

“Biggest disappointment? It’s Ferrari and Lewis Hamilton. Simple,” says journalist Sam Cooper. The partnership that promised so much delivered so little. Ferrari finished a staggering 435 points adrift of McLaren, a gap that highlights a catastrophic failure in development and execution. For Hamilton, the dream of fighting at the front turned into a nightmare of midfield scraps and unexplainable lack of pace. With the regulations shifting again in 2026, the pressure on the Scuderia is now suffocating. If they cannot deliver a competitive car next year, we may well be witnessing the final, fading laps of a legend.

The Rookie Who Defied the Odds

In stark contrast to the gloom at Maranello, the story of the year’s best rookie is one of redemption. Isack Hadjar’s Formula 1 debut in Australia was, quite literally, a car crash. Spinning out on the formation lap is the kind of humiliation that ends careers before they begin. It was the “lowest possible way” to start, a moment of pure devastation.

But what followed was remarkable. Instead of crumbling, Hadjar used that rock bottom as a foundation. Liberated by the fact that it couldn’t get any worse, he drove with a freedom and aggression that caught everyone off guard. His maiden podium at the chaotic Dutch Grand Prix was a highlight, but it was his consistent Q3 appearances and raw speed that convinced Red Bull to promote him alongside Verstappen for 2026.

Hadjar’s journey from the laughing stock of Melbourne to a Red Bull seat is a testament to mental resilience. He turned a nightmare start into a dream promotion, proving that in F1, you are only as good as your last race, not your first mistake.

The Williams Miracle and the Vegas Scandal

Elsewhere on the grid, the “Most Improved” accolade belongs undeniably to Williams. Under the stewardship of James Vowles, the team has transformed from backmarkers clinging to the sport by their fingertips into a genuine midfield powerhouse. Finishing 5th in the Constructors’ Championship with 137 points—up from a meager 17 the year prior—is a staggering achievement. Carlos Sainz, leading this charge with two podiums, revitalized his own career, outshining Hamilton in superior machinery and proving his worth as a top-tier driver.

However, the season wasn’t without its dark arts. The Las Vegas Grand Prix provided the year’s most explosive off-track drama with the double disqualification of the McLarens. The paddock rumors, the “ripple effect” of the news breaking late at night, and the subsequent point swings added a layer of intrigue that kept fans hooked until the final lap in Abu Dhabi. It was a stark reminder that in F1, the technical delegates are just as powerful as the drivers.

A Season for the Ages

2025 was a year where the script was flipped. We saw a Williams on the podium, a Hamilton in Q1, and a rookie crash on a formation lap only to earn a top-tier promotion. We saw a title fight that went down to the wire and a champion who, perhaps, still has to prove he is the undisputed king of the grid.

As we look toward 2026 and the new regulations, the questions are endless. Can Hadjar handle the pressure of being Verstappen’s teammate? Can Ferrari salvage their reputation? And will Lando Norris be able to defend his crown against a Max Verstappen who is undoubtedly hungry for revenge? One thing is certain: if 2026 is half as good as 2025, we are in for a treat.

The Yas Marina circuit is often a place of winding down. As the final engines cut out and the floodlights flicker over the deserted runway, the Formula 1 paddock typically exhales. Teams pack up, drivers jet off to winter vacations, and the sport enters its brief hibernation. But this year, under the cover of the desert night, something unprecedented happened—a moment that might just be looked back upon as the turning point for the most prestigious team in racing history.

While rival teams sent out their young development drivers to gather routine data, Ferrari found themselves host to a seven-time world champion who had absolutely no obligation to be there. Lewis Hamilton, fresh off a debut season in red that many had labeled a disaster, wasn’t looking for a rest. He was looking for answers. And what transpired in that garage wasn’t just a test session; it was a “silent declaration of war.”

The Context of Failure

To understand the gravity of this moment, we must rewind the clock on what has been a punishing year for the Tifosi. The arrival of Lewis Hamilton at Ferrari was heralded as the market coup of the century, a union of legends destined for glory. Yet, the reality of the 2025 season was a bitter pill to swallow. The SF25 was a temperamental beast, unresponsive and strategically flawed. There were no victories, only a series of “what ifs” diluted by pit lane errors and a car that simply couldn’t compete on Sundays.

The narrative began to turn dark. Critics whispered that Hamilton was in decline, a champion past his prime, unable to extract pace from a difficult machine. The magic seemed to have faded, lost in the turbulent air behind a DRS wing that rarely opened in anger. But narratives are often fragile things, easily shattered by the truth of what happens behind closed doors.

A Different Kind of Driver

When Hamilton arrived in Abu Dhabi for the post-season test, the atmosphere shifted. He didn’t carry the demeanor of a defeated pilot dragging himself through a contractual obligation. Instead, he arrived with the intensity of a rookie fighting for a seat and the surgical precision of a veteran who knows exactly what is broken.

He didn’t just drive; he immersed himself in the hidden language of the team. He buried himself in data sheets, led technical meetings, and dissected telemetry with a fervor that disconcerted even his own engineers. When he finally climbed into the “mule car”—an experimental prototype carrying parts for the 2026 challengers—it became clear he wasn’t there to set lap times. He was there to build.

The “Gold Dust” Diagnosis

The true shock for the Maranello engineers came not from Hamilton’s speed, but from his uncanny ability to diagnose complex mechanical flaws that millions of dollars of simulation equipment had missed.

According to internal sources, the team arrived with a standard checklist: test chassis rigidity, evaluate Pirelli’s new rubber, and check basic aerodynamics. Hamilton, however, went off-script in the most brilliant way possible. Without comparative data or a second opinion, he pinpointed a critical structural imbalance in the rear suspension. He identified a flaw in how loads were transferring during braking—a “ghost” issue that would have severely compromised traction in slow corners for the 2026 car.

This wasn’t a vague complaint about “lack of grip.” It was a detailed technical analysis integrating mechanical behavior with aerodynamic sensation. He didn’t just identify the poison; he offered the antidote. Hamilton proposed viable solutions on the spot, suggesting adjustments to the angle of attack on the upper arms, remapping internal shock absorbers, and redistributing unsprung mass. The team described his feedback as “gold dust.”

Revolutionizing the 2026 Concept

Perhaps the most defining moment of the test came when Hamilton refused to leave the garage after his stint. While others rested, he sat down with Team Principal Fred Vasseur and the heads of the “Project 678” team to discuss the upcoming active aerodynamic systems.

The 2026 regulations will introduce a new era of movable, sensorized aero parts. Most drivers view this as a button to press. Hamilton viewed it as an ecosystem. He proposed a radical redesign of the steering wheel, suggesting that aerodynamic changes shouldn’t just be toggled, but modulated based on steering angle and brake pressure—integrated organically into the vehicle’s dynamics.

This suggestion reportedly sparked a “storm of ideas” within the design team. It was a moment of realization for Ferrari: Hamilton was thinking like a designer. He was proposing an approach that could fundamentally change how the car drives, turning a regulatory constraint into a competitive advantage.

Leading From Within

The ripple effect of this test cannot be overstated. In an era where drivers are often treated as highly paid employees whose job ends when they step out of the cockpit, Hamilton reminded the world that the human element—intuition, experience, and commitment—is irreplaceable.

Engineers who had previously viewed the 2026 project with trepidation began to rethink their assumptions. A vehicle dynamics team that felt stuck found new avenues to explore. In that microclimate of tension and hope, genuine respect was forged. They didn’t see a superstar; they saw a leader willing to get his hands dirty.

Lewis Hamilton could have easily blamed the car. He could have spent the winter criticizing the team in the press. Instead, he chose the hardest path: leading from within. He chose to treat a lonely day of testing in the desert as “open heart surgery” for Ferrari’s future.

As the lights went out at Yas Marina, the message was clear. The 2025 season may have been one to forget, but the work done in its shadow has planted the seeds for a renaissance. Lewis Hamilton hasn’t gone anywhere. In fact, he’s just getting started.