X Close

Boris Johnson is still rewriting his immigration record

In denial. Credit: Getty

In denial. Credit: Getty

19 September 2025 - 10:00am

A “Tory row” reportedly erupted during a reception coinciding with Donald Trump’s state visit this week. Such disputes among politicians can be healthy. Modern media, by making private disagreements increasingly public, has done little to strengthen democracy.

But as that horse has bolted, one does have to wonder in what universe Boris Johnson is living. According to a witness quoted by the Daily Telegraph, the man who presided over the “Boriswave” of mass immigration actually thinks he did the opposite. The paper reports that “Boris robustly defended his government’s record [and] argued that Brexit gives us powers to reduce immigration if we wish, and said he did reduce it. He also said we shouldn’t bash the contribution migrants make to Britain.”

What? It’s such a baffling claim that it’s difficult to know what to make of it. Johnson and Priti Patel, then Home Secretary, presided over a huge increase in net immigration. The long-awaited points-based immigration system does give the UK powers to reduce immigration in theory, but in practice the Johnson government made it extremely generous.

More bafflingly, the former prime minister has in the past admitted to this, however grudgingly, telling the Sun that this country needed “hands to do the work” in order to avoid, of all things, upward pressure on wages. So where does this nonsense come from? There is not a single definition of immigration by which Johnson could claim to have reduced it.

These comments have obvious implications for the dreams of the dwindling band of restorationists who are still waiting for the great man to return and save the Conservative Party. Yet it also speaks to a deeper problem: the Tories’ apparently congenital inability to confront honestly the reasons they failed in office.

Instead, both the Left and Right of the party initially retreated into their preferred fairy tales. The Right’s is that everything would have been fine if not for some shadowy Blob conspiracy; the Left’s is that everything would have been fine if David Cameron hadn’t “lurched to the Right” and offered a referendum on the EU.

Neither is prepared to confront their real problem, which is that the Right never made a sustained effort to effect meaningful change on any policy area except Brexit (with the fleeting exception of Liz Truss), while the Left got what it wanted on tax, immigration, public spending, and nearly everything else except Brexit.

The scale of the failure of the 2010-24 era of Conservative government demands deep self-criticism. But nobody seems minded to do it; even Dominic Cummings, Johnson’s bête noire, has eyes only for the motes in everyone else’s.

Kemi Badenoch’s paralysed leadership is another symptom of the same problem. By setting out no detailed diagnosis of the party’s problems, she effectively offered herself in last year’s leadership contest as an opportunity to hit the snooze button on the intellectual and ideological battles the Tories need desperately to have — and which Robert Jenrick, like him or not, would have precipitated. Both during the campaign and now, almost a year in, she can maintain unity only by sticking to banal recitations of the party’s professed values.

Let Johnson defend his record (for surely nobody else will). But, more importantly, disregard the cheap digs from Reform UK  and let the Tories have it out. Lord knows it’s better than the alternative: if the public wanted a government that prioritised the outward appearance of unity over everything else, they would have re-elected Rishi Sunak.


Henry Hill is Deputy Editor of ConservativeHome.

HCH_Hill

China is threatening America in the AI race

Reports sugget Zhipu AI  has released a new model that can rival leading US systems. Credit: Getty

Reports sugget Zhipu AI has released a new model that can rival leading US systems. Credit: Getty

1 July 2026 - 10:18am

China is trying to catch up with America on artificial intelligence. The Wall Street Journal has reported that Zhipu AI — one of China’s six “AI tiger” LLMs — has released a new model that can rival leading US systems, including Anthropic’s Mythos, in cybersecurity tasks such as pinpointing security bugs. While this marks a milestone in China’s drive to catch up with Western AI capabilities, strong performance on a single benchmark does not mean it has taken the lead. Chinese models still lag behind their Western counterparts in broader capabilities, such as autonomous operation. Skepticism is therefore warranted before resorting to hysterical conclusions, but complacency about the geopolitical implications of China’s AI advances would be an even greater mistake.

On the infrastructure side, Chinese AI is still constrained by access to advanced chips, with American labs way ahead in computing capacity as well as investment. Analysis from earlier this year suggests that Chinese models are likely to be at least a few months behind those in the US. But they are still continuing to make progress, or that the geopolitical importance of AI will be decided only by whose LLM has ventured deeper into the technological frontier. The practical applications of AI, countries’ to capture foreign markets, and the application of AI into the real economy will matter just as much.

Here, China may hold an advantage. As with its dominance across many critical supply chains, Beijing may not need to produce the most advanced AI systems — only those that are affordable and widely deployable. In doing so, it could consolidate global influence by supplying functional, low-cost AI at scale.

Beijing seems to be pursuing exactly that path, developing an AI “open-source” strategy that offers affordable, widely available AI models for companies and individuals to use and modify as they wish. The production of the DeepSeek AI model, which matched the performance of Silicon Valley tools such as ChatGPT at a fraction of the cost for users, created goodwill among Chinese models with developers.

The four most popular models on OpenRouter, an AI hardware platform for developers, are now all Chinese. The goal for China is not only to win the frontier-model race, but to make its systems the default layer of AI adoption across industries and global markets. For most economies, the choice is increasingly between an affordable tool they can deploy now and a more robust one that may be out of reach.

And while the countries adopting Chinese models may be exposed to political pressure and cyber threats from Beijing, safer and more capable alternatives matter little if they are unaffordable. American AI companies are already under pressure to monetize products whose operating costs are rising. If Chinese open-source models become the cheap default for startups, universities, governments and businesses across the developing world, then America’s AI lead will be eroded from below.

Perhaps more concerning for America in the long run is how AI can give Chinese manufacturing even more strength, through the ongoing integration of AI as a general-purpose technology. China’s new Five-Year Plan mentioned AI more than 50 times and includes an “AI+” action plan aimed at spreading AI across the economy.

Beijing has been pioneering automation of its critical infrastructure for years, with promising recent results in increasing warplane production capacity. In that regard, China’s open-model strategy and manufacturing dominance will reinforce each other. Cheap, adaptable models accelerate deployment across the real economy while those deployments generate real-world data and use cases that can feed back into further model improvement.

The United States should not dismiss the importance of its lead in the AI race. That lead worries Beijing, not least because a more automated Chinese economy would also become more vulnerable to AI-generated cyber threats. But nor should Washington assume that China cannot catch up with American capabilities over time.

This AI competition represents part of a broader struggle over tech supply chains and geopolitical influence. Decisions over whether to adopt US or Chinese models could produce a more fragmented global reality, with different regions relying on different cloud providers, chips and security structures. The result will likely be a global economy which is divided into competing spheres, rather than one which produces a single winner.


Miquel Vila is a political and geopolitical risk consultant focusing on industrial strategy, critical infrastructure and global supply chains.

miquelvilam