Andy Burnham has faced Kemi Badenoch at his first Prime Minister’s Questions, defending his approach to public spending and welfare while refusing to rule out tax rises and promising a fully funded plan to increase defence spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP.

Prime Minister Andy Burnham has faced his first PMQs since entering Downing Street, with Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch using their opening encounter to challenge him over government spending, welfare reform, taxation and Britain’s defence commitments.

The exchanges came just a day after Burnham returned to the Commons despatch box for the first time in 16 years to set out his wider vision for government. At the start of PMQs, the Prime Minister joked about the extraordinary length of Tuesday’s appearance, which ran for around three and a half hours, saying it was “good to be back at this despatch box”.

But the tone quickly moved from ceremony to the central political question facing the new Government: can Burnham fund the programme he is promising at a time when government borrowing costs are putting increasing pressure on the public finances?

Badenoch targets Burnham on welfare spending

Badenoch opened by congratulating Burnham on his “stamina” following his marathon Commons appearance before asking whether he could identify a single spending request that he had rejected.

Burnham responded by focusing on welfare, telling MPs that the benefits bill needed to fall and arguing that it was not acceptable for so many young people to remain dependent on benefits.

However, rather than presenting welfare reductions primarily as a spending-cutting exercise, Burnham argued that government should invest in helping younger people move into work and opportunity.

He invited the Conservatives to work with the Government on the issue through what he described as “problem solving, not point scoring”, continuing one of the central themes of his first Commons statement.

Badenoch sought to turn that approach against him, accusing the Prime Minister of wanting to please everyone rather than taking difficult decisions.

“I think it’s delightful that he wants to make everyone happy. But a prime minister needs to be a leader, not a people pleaser,” she told the Commons.

Asked what he had actually cut, Burnham replied “tax”, pointing to the tax reductions announced during his first week in office. He also cited his decision to cancel the Government’s digital ID programme.

Burnham refuses to rule out tax rises

The sharpest dividing line came when Badenoch described Burnham as a “spendthrift” and challenged him directly to rule out tax increases at the Government’s forthcoming Budget.

Burnham did not do so.

Instead, he told MPs that he would not announce the Budget at Prime Minister’s Questions and argued that his early decisions demonstrated that his instinct was to cut taxes.

He then turned the attack back on the Conservatives, highlighting the record of Liz Truss’s short-lived administration and Badenoch’s appointment of Andrew Griffith as shadow chancellor, drawing attention to Griffith’s involvement in the Truss government.

The refusal to rule out tax rises is likely to remain significant as Chancellor John Healey prepares for the Budget on 28 October.

The economic backdrop has become increasingly difficult. UK government borrowing costs have risen sharply during a wider global bond sell-off, reducing the Chancellor’s room for manoeuvre against the Government’s fiscal rules. Reuters had already identified funding Burnham’s domestic ambitions as one of the defining challenges facing his administration as Parliament returned.

That means the political argument over whether Burnham can simultaneously reduce household costs, expand investment, increase defence expenditure and control borrowing is unlikely to disappear after one PMQs.

Defence spending becomes another dividing line

Defence provided Badenoch with another route into the same question.

The Conservative leader argued that reductions in welfare spending should be used to finance higher defence expenditure.

Burnham reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to increase defence spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP by 2035, saying a fully funded route to reaching that target would be presented at the spending review.

He also defended his decision to appoint former Defence Secretary John Healey as Chancellor, pointing directly to Healey’s defence experience.

Burnham used the exchange to return to his wider argument about economic growth and his record as Mayor of Greater Manchester.

“Yesterday I laid out a clear, coherent, credible plan for growth based on ten years of delivering it myself,” he told MPs. “This is grounded in reality. I want to take it to all parts of the country, and it’s all about bringing back a sense of positivity.”

It was perhaps the clearest summary of how Burnham intends to defend his premiership: that the policies he pursued through devolution in Greater Manchester can provide a template for a different national economic model.

Early prisoner release remains politically sensitive

PMQs also returned to the Government’s controversial changes to the prisoner early release scheme.

Plaid Cymru MP Ann Davies asked Burnham to apologise to victims and relatives who had been distressed by the proposals.

The Prime Minister said he understood the “anguish” experienced by families and argued that he had demanded further changes after concluding that the original proposals had not adequately addressed their concerns.

Burnham told MPs he wanted to ensure that “we are never in this position again”, reinforcing the more cautious approach to early release that his Government has adopted following criticism of the scheme.

Former Welsh Secretary Jo Stevens also raised police funding, highlighting Cardiff’s position as a UK capital without dedicated capital city policing funding. Burnham confirmed that the police funding formula is under review and said he would engage with Stevens on the issue.

A different style of PMQs, but the numbers will determine Burnham’s success

Burnham entered Downing Street promising to change not only government policy but the way politics operates. His repeated appeal for “problem solving, not point scoring” is clearly intended to distinguish his premiership from the confrontational Westminster politics he has criticised.

His first PMQs showed both the attraction and the difficulty of that approach.

Burnham appeared willing to acknowledge problems with welfare spending, engage with opposition proposals and defend changes made following criticism of the prisoner release scheme. But Badenoch identified the pressure point that is likely to dominate the autumn.

It is considerably easier to promise investment, public service reform, lower household costs and a larger defence budget than it is to explain how all of them will be paid for.

Burnham’s answer is that growth, devolution, reform and a different economic model can begin to change Britain’s trajectory. Badenoch’s argument is that the numbers will eventually force him to choose between higher taxes, lower spending or more borrowing.

The first Burnham versus Badenoch PMQs therefore established what could become the defining economic argument of the new political era.

The Prime Minister may want Westminster to move from point-scoring to problem-solving. The Budget on 28 October will begin to show whether his Government has found the money to do it.

(Photo: House of Commons)

Prime Minister Andy Burnham used his first statement to the House of Commons to define his Government around devolution, public control and regional growth. It was a clear account of how he believes Britain went wrong, but Labour Party Conference must provide a more detailed programme for improving health and care, supporting life sciences and making Britain an AI and science superpower.

A place-first vision for government

Andy Burnham’s first Commons statement as Prime Minister was intended to reinforce some of the key messages he has made over the summer and establish a governing philosophy and a political dividing line. Commentators have a mixed view on how he achieved.

However, his central argument was that the UK’s economic problems stem from four decades in which political power was centralised, economic power was privatised, industry declined and local government was weakened. Brexit, he argued, then compounded the damage through lower growth and stalled regeneration.

The solution offered was the “biggest redistribution of power this country has seen”, with Number 10 North acting as a single point through which regions can secure faster decisions, greater powers and access to government resources.

Burnham’s political proposition is therefore distinct: growth will not be delivered principally through national targets or decisions taken in Whitehall, but by giving places greater control over infrastructure, skills, transport, housing and investment.

“This is politics done differently. Problem solving over point scoring. It is what the country needs.”

The statement also gave an indication of his governing style. Burnham promised continuity where he believed the previous administration had made progress, including support for Ukraine and action on small boat crossings, while signalling changes to prisoner-release policy and the structure of economic decision-making.

There was, however, considerably more diagnosis than delivery detail. The proposed 10-year plan for Britain, expected later this year, will have to explain which powers will move, which budgets will follow them and how local and national accountability will work.

Health and care: important signals, but not yet a reform programme

Health did not occupy a central position in the statement, although Burnham identified two areas that are likely to become significant features of his domestic programme.

The first was social care. He confirmed that cross-party discussions had begun during the summer, suggesting that the Government recognises the need for a settlement capable of surviving changes in political leadership. That is a constructive beginning, but the statement offered no indication of the model under consideration, its funding, the timetable for reform or how social care will be integrated with NHS services.

The second was mental health. Burnham promised more accessible, community-based mental health provision as part of the Government’s response to the forthcoming Milburn Report. This connected health reform to his wider economic argument: better community support can help more people remain in or return to employment.

Yet the statement was largely silent on the wider pressures facing health and care. There was no substantive account of how the Government will reduce waiting lists, address workforce shortages, shift resources towards prevention or modernise services through data and technology.

Life sciences were not mentioned directly. That is a notable omission for a Government seeking an innovation-led economy. The sector connects many of the Prime Minister’s priorities, including regional growth, university research, advanced manufacturing, NHS productivity and inward investment, but it was not incorporated into his theory of place-led growth.

Before Labour Party Conference, the Government should explain how local industrial strategies will support life sciences clusters beyond the established “golden triangle”; how the NHS will become a more effective partner in research and adoption; and how discoveries developed in Britain will be scaled, manufactured and deployed here.

AI, science and technology: an ambition without a national mission

Burnham committed the Government to building “an innovation-led economy in all parts of the UK” through a “triple helix” bringing business, academia, and government together. He also said that more must be done to help British start-ups and scale-ups remain in the country.

“We can lift the prospects of all our people and places. We can put more power into every postcode. We can let Britain believe again.”

That language provides the beginnings of a regional innovation strategy. The recognition that grid connections, energy costs, technical education and local investment capacity affect growth is particularly relevant to AI, advanced computing and technology infrastructure.

However, neither artificial intelligence nor quantum technology featured directly in the statement. There was no clear account of how Britain will compete for compute capacity, commercialise its research base, improve access to growth capital or use public procurement to create markets for British technology.

Nor was there an explanation of how greater regional autonomy will be reconciled with the need for national infrastructure, common regulatory standards and strategic investment at scale. Devolution can develop stronger technology clusters, but it cannot by itself provide the computing, energy, data access and patient capital required to compete with the United States, China and increasingly ambitious European and Asian economies.

At Labour Party Conference, Burnham should turn the “innovation-led economy” into a recognisable national mission. That should include clear priorities for AI, quantum, engineering and life sciences; regional specialisms linked to university and industrial strengths; national infrastructure commitments; and measurable routes from research through commercialisation to adoption.

Conference must supply the missing delivery plan

The first statement succeeded in setting out Burnham’s political philosophy: Britain will grow by transferring power, rebuilding local capacity and giving communities greater control over the economy and essential services.

What it did not yet provide was a sufficiently detailed account of how those principles will change public services or establish the UK as a scientific and technological leader.

Labour Party Conference is therefore the Prime Minister’s opportunity to move from diagnosis to delivery. He will need to show how devolution will improve NHS and care outcomes, how life sciences will become a central component of regional growth and how AI, quantum and advanced technology will be supported as national strategic capabilities.

The vision is “power in every postcode”. The next test is whether the Government can attach institutions, investment, deadlines and measurable outcomes to it.

The Government has launched the first £100 million Sovereign AI competition and R&D Procurement Scheme, with healthcare, defence, cyber security and computing infrastructure among the first areas targeted.

Rather than operating solely as a conventional innovation grant programme, the scheme is intended to use the purchasing power of the state to give emerging UK AI businesses opportunities to develop and demonstrate technology against real public sector challenges.

One of the first four competitions will focus specifically on NHS productivity, with companies asked to develop AI systems capable of automating workflows, improving the co-ordination of care and supporting decision-making across health services.

Government turns to procurement to scale UK AI as part of sovereign AI competition

The programme forms part of the Government’s wider Sovereign AI strategy and is intended to address one of the longstanding difficulties faced by smaller technology businesses attempting to sell into the public sector.

Ministers argue that innovative start-ups can struggle to secure major public contracts because they lack the turnover, cash reserves or established procurement track record of larger suppliers.

Under the new model, upfront payments will be available where appropriate, while businesses selected through the competitions will retain the intellectual property they create. The intention is to allow companies to develop technologies with Government before taking successful products into wider UK and international markets.

NHS productivity among first four challenges

The first stage of the £100 million programme contains four competitions.

The NHS productivity challenge, developed with the Department of Health and Social Care, will look at how artificial intelligence can automate administrative and clinical workflows, better co-ordinate care and support decision-making across health services.

The Government says the technologies should contribute to the ambitions of the NHS 10 Year Health Plan while improving both staff experience and productivity.

A second competition will examine how to improve the efficiency of the computing infrastructure needed to run AI systems.

Further challenges will focus on securely integrating data and advanced AI capabilities across defence systems, and developing technology to test the security and resilience of increasingly autonomous AI agents.

The technologies being sought are not expected to be early research projects. Instead, the programme is targeting products which have progressed beyond initial research and development but still require a real-world environment in which to prove their effectiveness.

Successful companies will work alongside Government departments to build demonstrator-stage technologies that could subsequently be deployed more widely across the public sector.

Opening public procurement to UK AI companies

The scheme has been welcomed by the UK AI industry, which has repeatedly argued that Government should make greater use of procurement to support the development and growth of domestic technology companies.

Welcoming the announcement, Tim Flagg, Chief Executive of UKAI, said:

“UKAI wholeheartedly welcomes today’s announcement of the £100 million Sovereign AI R&D Procurement Scheme, something we have been calling for for years, and a genuinely positive sign that the Burnham administration is willing to back British AI with funding, not just words.

“By opening up public procurement to innovative UK start-ups, this scheme should accelerate the growth of the UK’s AI industry, build much needed sovereign capability, and help tackle real inefficiencies in our public services, from the NHS to national security.

“Just as importantly, investment in British AI is investment in future jobs, for young people entering the workforce and for workers displaced by economic change alike. This is a strategic investment in Britain’s future.”

The Government says becoming an early customer could help businesses overcome one of the most difficult stages of technology development: moving from a successful prototype to a product with a proven customer and a credible route towards large-scale adoption.

That distinction could prove particularly important in healthcare.

From AI pilots to NHS adoption

The NHS has no shortage of emerging artificial intelligence technologies. The bigger policy question is increasingly how technologies that demonstrate improvements in care, productivity or patient safety move beyond individual pilots and become safely embedded within everyday NHS services.

The Government’s wider health reform programme identifies the move from analogue to digital as one of the major shifts required across the health service, including greater use of digital services, data and technology to change how patients access care and how staff deliver it.

But procurement is only part of the challenge.

Introducing AI into healthcare raises questions about clinical accountability, interoperability between systems, cyber security, patient consent, data use and public trust. Technologies also have to work for frontline professionals rather than creating additional processes or administrative burdens.

Dr Mark Ratnarajah, Chair of the AI Working Group at UK Healthcare and Life Sciences Innovation and Chief Clinical Information Officer at Sword Intelligence, said:

“Real procurement budget behind real NHS problems – this is how you turn promising AI pilots into national impact to address the real world problems facing patients and healthcare professionals.

“Sword Intelligence welcomes a scheme that finally lets innovative British firms prove their technology inside live NHS services, generate IP, and scale.”

Those implementation questions are becoming increasingly important as ministers seek to turn national digital ambitions into changes that patients and NHS staff experience in practice.

UKHLSI to examine the NHS shift from analogue to digital

The same questions will be examined by UK Healthcare and Life Sciences Innovation (UKHLSI) as part of its NHS Modernisation Bill Programme.

On Monday 14 September, UKHLSI and independent policy institute Curia will convene the programme’s From Analogue to Digital evidence session in Central London.

Chaired by Dr Mark Ratnarajah, with James Freed among those confirmed to contribute, the session will bring together healthcare leaders, clinicians, innovators and policy specialists to examine what needs to change if digital technology, data and AI are to become successfully embedded throughout NHS services.

The discussion will consider privacy and consent, cyber security, interoperability, accountability and public trust, alongside the practical usability of new technologies for staff and patients across primary, secondary, community and social care.

The session forms part of a wider UKHLSI programme examining how national NHS reform can be translated into practical implementation.

It will explore not only what new technology can do, but the conditions required for adoption: procurement reform, clinical confidence, effective governance, interoperable systems, workforce engagement and evidence that technologies genuinely improve patient outcomes or staff productivity.

For the new £100 million AI procurement scheme, that distinction will matter.

Backing UK companies to develop promising technology is one part of the equation. The longer-term test will be whether the NHS can create the procurement processes, infrastructure, governance and frontline conditions required to take technologies that work and adopt them responsibly at scale.

Find out more

The From Analogue to Digital NHS Modernisation Bill session takes place on Monday 14 September 2026, from 12pm to 2pm in Central London.

The session will examine privacy and consent, cyber security, interoperability, accountability, public trust and frontline usability as the NHS seeks to accelerate its shift from analogue to digital.

Evidence will consider how digital transformation can work across primary, secondary, community and social care, and what needs to change nationally and locally to move effective innovation from individual pilots into routine NHS delivery.

To find out more, contact Partnerships Director, Ben McDermott bmcdermott@ukhlsi.co.uk

Photo: Alecsandra Dragoi/DSIT

• Council By-elections - 15

Conservatives

• Loss of 4 councillors (Did not win any by-election)

• Lost divisions to: Reform UK / Green Party

• Gained divisions from: N/A

Worth Watching: Potential early signs of a loss of momentum after having been the only party to make a net gain in July. The difference between the divisions lost to Reform - older - and those to the Greens - broadly younger and more affluent - underpins the challenge they face in choosing which side of their traditional base to target. Older voters have different priorities from today’s aspirational young adults.

Share

Reform UK

• Unchanged in number of councillors - 6

• Lost divisions to: Labour / Liberal Democrats

• Gained divisions from: Conservatives / Labour

Worth Watching: A potential narrowing of Reform UK’s electoral base back to its ‘core’ vote following the calling of the Clacton by-election. Before Nigel Farage triggered the by-election, 4 of Reform’s 6 post-May council by-election wins came in divisions where a majority of the population was not experiencing deprivation. Since then, only 1 of their 9 wins was in such a division.

Labour*

• Net loss of 1 councillor

• Lost divisions to: Liberal Democrats / Reform UK

• Gained divisions from: Reform UK

Worth Watching: Sticking power of the ‘Burnham Bounce’ effect. For the second month in a row they improved their success rate to 27% compared to 19% in July and 13% in June. Additionally, winning two rural divisions from Reform may indicate that the rural electorate is willing to consider Labour again after the damage done by the inheritance tax changes.

*Three of the divisions classified as ‘Labour’ elected a Labour councillor who then resigned the whip and became an independent. These are counted as Labour defences because the last time each division was contested the Labour candidate was elected.

Subscribe now

Green Party

• Net gain of 2 councillors

• Lost divisions to: N/A

• Gained divisions from: Conservatives

Worth Watching: The splitting of the right-of-centre vote in broadly middle-class divisions - educated, less-deprived and home-owning - could be allowing the Greens to come ‘through the middle’ to win in areas where they were traditionally weak. However, the same tactical voting that has previously benefited the Greens, such as in the Gorton and Denton parliamentary by-election, may become a hindrance if right-of-centre voters adopt a similar approach to ‘stop’ the Greens.

Liberal Democrats

• Gain of 3 councillors

• Lost divisions to: N/A

• Gained divisions from: Labour / Reform

Worth Watching: Their ability to win in divisions that are strongly demographically aligned with the Conservatives - older, wealthier and more highly educated. Two of their August gains came in divisions that had been Conservative-held within the past five years. Recent Conservative policy announcements, such as proposals to restrict social housing eligibility for foreign nationals, may be pushing some of the centrist Conservative voters towards the Liberal Democrats.

Polling - Voting Intention

In national polling, there was little change in the headline voting intention. The Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and the Greens were unchanged on 20.7%, 11.3% and 11.7% respectively.

Labour experienced a small drop in support, while Reform saw a small increase with both being on

23.5%.

Source: YouGov/More in Common/Find Out Now - Weekly GB voting intention: data from the last week of the month. Analysis: MDY Strategy. Methodology: Mean of data from each polling company - equal weighting to each company.

Subscribe to Mark

Other Interesting Polling

Reform UK / Restore Britain merger - Farage Succession Question - More in Common

• Respondents were asked which of 12 listed candidates they would want to replace Farage.

• 2 politicians stood out - Robert Jenrick and Rupert Lowe.

  • Support for each changes significantly across generations

  • Robert Jenrick - 18-24 = 1%, 25-34 = 5% / 65-74 = 10%, 75+ = 6%

  • Rupert Lowe - 18-24 = 9%, 25-34 = 10% / 65-74 = 4%, 75+ = 2%

• View full poll here

Why it’s interesting - Potentially points to an upcoming fight over the direction of Reform UK post Nigel Farage.

5 By-elections to Watch

Main Trends to Watch

• Liberal Democrats - They are contesting 2 divisions held by the Greens both of which are on councils controlled by the Liberal Democrats. Winning these would show whether their recent momentum in moderate right leaning divisions can translate into gains in moderate left leaning areas.

• Conservatives - They are defending 5 divisions, at least 3 of which are in areas demographically similar to where they have been winning. Failure to defend these should worry the party, as these are the type of divisions where the Party has remained most competitive.

• Reform - Wombourne North provides a test of whether Reform can regain momentum against the Conservatives. Winning the division would suggest they are able to make progress outside the areas where they have a strong ‘core’ voter base.

Methodology Behind Predictions

Frome West

• Local Factors: Demographically, it is less aligned with areas where the Green Party is currently winning, particularly due to its smaller proportion of residents aged 18–30. The Lib Dems also control the council.

• National Factors: The Green Party has changed substantially since the division was last contested in 2022 - it has shifted to the left under Zack Polanski.

Eckington South & Renishaw

• Local Factors: High level of demographic similarity with where Reform is winning other council elections.

Blockley

• Local Factors: It is rural, alongside being demographically less aligned with where the Green Party is currently winning, particularly in the age split; the Lib Dems also control the council.

• National Factors: The Green Party has changed substantially since the division was last contested in 2023 - it has shifted to the left under Zack Polanski.

Wombourne North

• Local Factors: Demographically it’s broadly aligned with Conservative wins and in July the Conservatives won another South-Staffordshire by-election and were ahead of Reform by 16 percentage points.

• National Factors: Reform appears to be shifting back to its ‘core’ vote, and this division’s demographics are less aligned with their recent success - in particular a higher proportion of residents with a degree.

• Weak Con hold - the proportion of residents experiencing no deprivation is a little lower than in areas where Conservatives have been winning.

Bray

• Local Factors: Demographically similar to recent Liberal Democrat successes, but Borough Firsts are a strong group of independents on the Council and they won 1 of the 2 seats available when the division was last contested.

• National Factors: When last contested in 2023, the Conservatives were polling approximately 28% versus 20% currently.

Mark Yale is a freelance political strategist with MDY Strategy. He specialises in data-led campaigns, messaging and stakeholder research. You can get in touch with him here.

There are few political principles quite as sincerely held as the ones that happen to be electorally convenient.

That is especially true of electoral reform.

Under our current first-past-the-post system, winning parties will often receive a larger share of seats in Parliament than their share of the national vote. Proportional representation seeks to make each party’s share of seats reflect its share of the vote more closely.

It should therefore come as no surprise that parties disadvantaged by our existing voting system tend to discover that it represents an intolerable affront to democracy, while parties benefiting from it generally conclude that it provides strong and stable government. Occasionally, electoral circumstances change and, through what must be a remarkable coincidence, their constitutional principles change with them.

The ascension of Andy Burnham to Prime Minister has brought the question of electoral reform back to Westminster. Burnham has supported proportional representation since at least 2021, repeatedly calling for Labour to put the proposal in a general election manifesto. His position today is broadly unchanged. While still a supporter of PR, he maintains that he will not change the voting system without first securing an electoral mandate through a firm manifesto commitment. To his credit, that is a fairly honourable and democratic position. Nevertheless, a large group of his own MPs have decided that waiting patiently is overrated.

Labour MP Alex Sobel has tabled an amendment requiring the government to report on the feasibility of establishing an independent National Commission on Electoral Reform. If established, the commission would review the system used for Commons elections and could recommend reforms before the next general election. At the time of writing, the amendment is backed by 176 MPs, including 87 MPs elected for Labour in 2024.

The pattern of supporting PR out of electoral self-interest is already well established at party level. Sobel’s amendment gave me an opportunity to examine whether the same pattern extends to individual MPs. Before turning to the numbers, two examples show just how familiar it is.

Share

A Proud History

1979-1997 saw eighteen straight years of Conservative Party rule with each Tory victory during this period built on parliamentary majorities produced from minorities of the popular vote. Unsurprisingly, calls for electoral reform within the Labour Party began to grow during this period. After all, such disproportionate outcomes were continually blighting British democracy. Labour therefore entered the 1997 election promising a referendum on the system used to elect the Commons and an independent commission to find an appropriate voting system. After Labour won that election with a massive majority, the promised commission duly arrived, produced its report and was rewarded with the traditional fate of inconvenient commission proposals: being ignored. The promised referendum never happened.

Reform offers a more recent example. UKIP, the Brexit Party and Reform, all led by Nigel Farage, have spent years supporting proportional representation while winning millions of votes and almost no seats. Reform’s 2024 manifesto again promised a referendum on replacing first-past-the-post. Since then, its polling position has improved to the point where the same system could conceivably deliver the party a parliamentary majority. References to PR have disappeared from Reform’s current policy platform, and its chairman, Zia Yusuf, has declared that the party is now “firmly in favour of first-past-the-post.”

The parties occupy very different parts of the political spectrum. Their constitutional principles have shown a remarkably similar sensitivity to electoral arithmetic.

So the question is, are Labour MPs with small majorities, i.e. those that are most at risk from first-past-the-post and most likely to improve their careers after a change in electoral system, more likely to support a change than those in safe seats who are enjoying the unearned safety with which the current system rewards them?

Testing The Theory

To test the relationship between electoral self-interest and support for PR among Labour MPs, I looked at all 411 MPs elected for Labour in 2024 and compared those who signed Sobel’s amendment with those who did not. Electoral security was measured by the percentage-point gap between each MP and the second-placed candidate.

The initial results point in the expected direction. Signatories had an average majority of 16.5 percentage points, compared with 19.4 points among non-signatories. There was a small but statistically significant linear relationship between majority size and signing, with support becoming less likely as majorities increased.

The difference becomes clearer when a 30-point majority is used as the benchmark for a very safe seat. This broadly separates MPs who might reasonably worry about losing their seats at the next election from those who can afford to sleep rather more soundly. Among Labour MPs below that threshold, 78 out of 333 signed the amendment, or 23.4 per cent. Among those with majorities of 30 points or more, only nine out of 78 signed, or 11.5 per cent. Labour MPs outside the safest seats were therefore roughly twice as likely to support the amendment.

Accounting for ideology

Electoral insecurity appears an even stronger influence on support for PR once ideology is taken into account. In modern Labour politics, support for PR has generally been stronger on the party’s left. When I divided the signatories by ideological position, left-wing MPs were heavily overrepresented among those signing from seats with majorities above 30 points. The same imbalance was not present to anything like the same degree among signers below the threshold. This made me wonder whether the effect of electoral security differed according to an MP’s ideology.

To test this, I matched 397 Labour MPs with left-right estimates produced from two Survation surveys of local councillors for Royal Holloway, University of London and UK in a Changing Europe. Councillors were asked to compare MPs’ ideological positions in pairs, with the results used to place them on a scale from zero for the most left-wing to 100 for the most right-wing. I then used these scores to divide Labour MPs into ideological quartiles, from the leftmost 25 per cent to the rightmost 25 per cent, and found a striking difference in how electoral security affected different ideological segments of the Labour Party.

Among the leftmost quarter of Labour MPs, 32.1 per cent of those below the 30-point threshold signed the pro-PR amendment, compared with 27.3 per cent of those above it. Among the remaining three-quarters of the party, the corresponding figures were 21.4 per cent and just 5.6 per cent. This suggests that, for the left of the Labour Party, electoral self-interest, by and large, really isn’t a driving factor behind support for PR, while elsewhere in the party, enthusiasm for reform is considerably easier to find among MPs with something to fear from first-past-the-post.

Subscribe now

What the results show

While nothing in this data proves with absolute certainty that most of the MPs who publicly support PR have only done so after receiving deeply upsetting polling data, the wider pattern of Labour MPs in competitive seats publicly supporting electoral reform at much higher rates is difficult to dismiss.

Electoral self-interest is not the only plausible explanation. MPs in marginal seats may differ in their willingness to openly support PR for a myriad of different reasons, and this analysis did not test the many alternative explanations. Likewise, it is not the case that the signatories to the amendment were the only MPs within the party who support electoral reform, as polling data reported by LabourList shows that an electoral reform commission is supported by most of the PLP. Nevertheless, there is an obvious logic to politicians supporting policies that serve their electoral interests, and the pattern of signatures appears to support that logic.

Conclusion

Finally, I want to end on the moral implications of these results. While I have my own views on proportional representation, I don’t believe that debate is relevant to this analysis. My concern here is the process by which politicians seek to change the rules under which they themselves compete.

I care deeply about democracy, and when support for changing electoral rules varies according to how safely politicians are treated by the existing ones, scepticism is justified. Political principles are always more convincing when they survive electoral convenience.

Subscribe now

Share

The Government has commissioned an independent review of the rising demand for autism and ADHD services and whether these conditions are being over diagnosed.

Ahead of the review the NHS Alliance (formerly NHS Confederation), an independent body that represents healthcare managers and commissioners, has revealed that ADHD and autism NHS costs have been spiralling in recent years.

Subscribe now

Costs “Out Of Control”

According to the NHS Alliance, one integrated car board (ICB) saw costs increase tenfold to £1.5 million per month, another’s annual spending increased from £4 million to £30 million per year within two years.

In Cheshire and Merseyside, spending on adult ADHD services increased from £11 million in 2023-24 to a projected £51 million this year.

Despite these cost increases in June the National Autistic Society reported that there were 294,000 on NHS waiting lists for an autism assessment.

Mel Merritt, Head of Policy and Influencing at the National Autistic Society, said: 
“Andy Burnham has said that he wants the Government to stop paying for failure when we should be instead investing in success.”

ADHD and Autism NHS System

The current costs crisis seems to be caused by those long waiting lists and several policies interacting to create a perfect storm.

Unlike many procedures, there is no mandatory national tariff for autism and ADHD services. There are non-mandatory guide prices but providers are under no obligation to follow them.

At the same time, the NHS Right to Choose policy has allowed patients to choose both NHS and non-NHS providers for their care.

Prices charged for similar services can vary drastically across providers. One ICB reported paying between £300 and £3000 for similar services.

This has led to an influx of private and charity providers into the system with one ICB reporting that it now works with 48 providers, four times as many as two years ago. This proliferation is also making it harder for ICBs to manage the quality of the care provided.

Providers carrying our assessments do not have to register with the Care Quality Commission, so they are also less regulated than other NHS services.

Share

Reactions

Rebecca Gray Director of the Mental Health Network at the NHS Alliance, speaking to Times Radio, said that “there definitely needs to be change”. She called for greater consistency in assessments, stronger oversight to ensure money is spent effectively, and improved regulation, including a national specification setting out what a good assessment should look like.

“The current situation is unsustainable and delivers a bad deal for patients and taxpayers.”

“We hope forthcoming national investigations including the Independent Review into mental health conditions, ADHD and autism will shine a light on what lies behind the recent surge in demand for assessments.”

Mel Merritt, of the National Autistic Society, said: “Spending is rising on short-term solutions due to years of a lack of long-term investment in improving services.”

Steve Gilbert OBE, Chair of the UK Healthcare and Life Sciences Innovation (UKHLSI) Mental Health working group and former Vice Chair for the Independent Mental Health Act Review “As a group working to reduce unwarranted variation in mental health services, particularly for people with severe and enduring mental illness, we recognise how important timely diagnosis is for ADHD and autism. Unfortunately, long waits aren’t unique to these conditions. People with bipolar disorder wait an average of 9.5 years for an accurate diagnosis, and Right to Choose doesn’t help them: the scheme currently doesn’t extend to bipolar assessments at all. Right to Choose is a valuable route to faster care, but if some providers are using it to cash in, the NHS is right to tighten how it’s funded.”

Visit UKHLSI

The world’s first patient to undergo AI-assisted brain surgery has successfully had a tumour removed, offering a striking demonstration of how AI could support clinicians while raising the bigger question of how the NHS takes innovations from individual trials into everyday care.

AI provides surgeons with a second pair of eyes

A world-first operation at University College London Hospitals has demonstrated how artificial intelligence could support surgeons during some of the NHS’s most complex procedures.

Rhys Hibbert, a 48-year-old father of two from Bedfordshire, underwent surgery to remove an 11mm non-cancerous tumour from his pituitary gland after it began affecting his vision.

The tumour was located close to the carotid arteries and optic nerves, making surgery particularly delicate. During the procedure, an AI system analysed the live video feed from the operation, tracked surgical instruments and highlighted where important vessels and nerves were likely to be located.

Rather than replacing clinical judgement, the technology acted as an additional source of information for the surgical team, with surgeons remaining in control throughout the operation.

Professor Hani Marcus, consultant neurosurgeon at the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery and Professor of Neurosurgery at UCL, described the technology as an expert “second pair of eyes”.

The system had been trained and evaluated using hundreds of videos of previous pituitary tumour operations, giving it exposure to more procedures than an individual surgeon is likely to perform during much of their career.

For Hibbert, the impact was immediate. After experiencing worsening peripheral vision before the operation, he reported a dramatic improvement following surgery and said the treatment had “given me my life back”.

Government backs AI with safeguards

The development comes as ministers increasingly look to artificial intelligence, digital technology and data to improve NHS productivity and patient outcomes.

Health Innovation Minister James Frith MP welcomed the breakthrough and said he was pleased Hibbert had received “life-changing surgery” through government-funded research.

He added:

“AI needs proper safeguards and we will always ensure that safety is taken seriously.

“But we will also ensure we benefit from the opportunities it brings.”

The fuller announcement from UCLH also makes clear the Government sees the procedure as an example of how AI could contribute to faster and more effective NHS care, provided innovation is accompanied by appropriate safeguards.

The research has been funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research and Google, following years of laboratory development.

Professor Mike Lewis, National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Scientific Director for Innovation, said the development demonstrated the potential for advanced AI to support surgeons and improve patient care. He also linked the research to the Government’s wider ambition to use technology and innovation as part of its long-term plans for the health service.

AI-assisted brain surgery: the next challenge is adoption

The significance of the operation extends beyond one procedure.

The NHS is home to world-leading clinicians, researchers and technology companies, but one of the longstanding challenges for policymakers is turning successful research and individual pilots into technologies that can be adopted safely and consistently throughout the health service.

AI-assisted surgery demonstrates how clinicians and patients understand the role being played by an AI system. Yet, several questions remain – including who remains accountable for decisions? How should healthcare data be used to develop and evaluate new technologies? What standards should apply to interoperability and cybersecurity? How can new systems be introduced without adding additional complexity to already stretched frontline services?

Perhaps most importantly, how does the NHS move from proving that an innovation works to making it available to patients at scale?

A spokesperson for UKAI said:

“Rhys’ surgery is a powerful example of AI being used not to replace clinical expertise, but to give highly skilled professionals better information at the moment they need it.

“The opportunity now is to create the conditions in which technologies that demonstrate real improvements in safety, outcomes and productivity can move from research and individual pilots into responsible adoption across the NHS.

“That requires industry, clinicians, patients, regulators and policymakers to work together on issues including evidence, infrastructure, data, interoperability, procurement, and trust.”

These questions are also being examined through the UKAI Healthcare and Life Sciences Innovation (UKHLSI) Working Group, which brings together organisations interested in the development and responsible adoption of AI across healthcare and life sciences.

The group provides an opportunity for innovators and healthcare stakeholders to examine the practical barriers standing between technological capability and real-world implementation, and to contribute evidence on how policy can support safe adoption and scaling.

Welcoming the news as Chair of UK Healthcare and Life Sciences Innovation’s (UKHSLI) AI Working Group, Dr Mark Ratnarajah, Clinical Director, Sword Intelligence said:

“This world-first shows what’s possible when clinical expertise and AI work hand in hand – but the real test for the NHS is turning breakthroughs like this into everyday, trusted care at scale. That’s precisely the challenge we’ll be exploring in the NHS Modernisation Bill’s ‘From Analogue to Digital’ session next month, and it’s the gap our work at Sword Intelligence is focused on closing.”

From Analogue to Digital

The same issues will be at the centre of UK Healthcare and Life Sciences Innovation’s (UKHSLI) NHS Modernisation Bill Programme.

On Monday 14 September, UKHLSI will convene its From Analogue to Digital session in Central London, examining what needs to change if digital technology, data and AI are to become embedded successfully throughout NHS services.

Chaired by Dr Mark Ratnarajah, with NHS Digital Academy among those confirmed to contribute, the session will examine privacy and consent, cybersecurity, interoperability, accountability and public trust.

It will also consider a question that can sometimes be overlooked in debates about health technology: whether new digital systems actually work for frontline professionals and patients across primary, secondary, community and social care.

The world-first operation at UCLH demonstrates what can become possible when clinical expertise, research and advanced technology come together.

The challenge for the next phase of NHS modernisation is ensuring breakthroughs such as this do not remain isolated examples of innovation, but help inform a health service capable of identifying, evaluating and adopting technologies that can improve care at scale.

To find out more about the UKAI Healthcare and Life Sciences working group, please contact benmcdermott@ukai.co and to find out more about the UK Healthcare and Life Sciences Innovation (UKHLSI) AI Working Group, please contact bmcdermott@ukhlsi.co.uk

Rhys Hibbert, 48, from Bedfordshire, has become the first patient in the world to undergo brain surgery using live AI assistance.

The surgery removed a tumour on the patients pituitary gland with surgeons being assisted by an AI system that analysed video footage of the surgery in real time and offered advice on how the surgeons could more safely remove the tumour.

Subscribe now

AI-Assisted Surgery – How the AI Helps

As surgeons proceeded, live feed of the surgery was analysed by AI. It tracked the surgical instruments, identified important blood vessels and where nerves were likely to be.

Real time advice was then relayed to the surgeons.

The system was trained on hundreds of videos of previous operations on pituitary glands. The hope is that training an AI on more surgeries than any individual surgeon will ever perform will allow it to offer suggestions from a greater depth of experience than even a full surgical team has.

Outcome

The tumour was successfully removed by Prof Hani Marcus and Mr Danyal Khan, who were in control throughout the entire operation, deciding whether to follow the AI generated advice or not.

The operation took place at University College London Hospitals at the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery.

Eight weeks after the surgery, the patient reported improved vision, improved energy and a reduction in previous symptoms.

Before the surgery there it was estimated that there was a 25-50% chance that the tumour would not be possible to remove and 0.5-2% chance that a major blood vessel would be damaged.

Currently, it is unclear how useful the AI assistance was in this surgery.

Future

The research which led to this AI assisted surgery was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research and Google. Researchers are now working on a larger trial of this technology in order to deliver AI generated expert advice to be delivered to surgeons on demand during operations.

Subscribe now

Final Thought

It is currently unclear how helpful AI-assistance was in this world-first surgery. In this case we have a good outcome and it is good for the UK that this sort of world first is being set here.

However, this sort of high-risk use case for AI raises questions that are important to answer as this technology and use case become more widespread.

Where does responsibility lie when an inexperienced surgeon takes the advice of an AI that results in harm to a patient? Should the AI focus on ensuring the surgeon avoids mistakes or could the AI guide them through less familiar procedures? How does this technology change the relationship between hospital, surgeon and technology, and is that always to the patient’s benefit?

Larger trials of this technology will certainly be needed but it remains to be seen whether this will become a useful tool for some surgeons or required oversight of their work. Will be start to see AI advice received during surgeries at morbidity and mortality meetings? Will surgeons, who’s statistics are already closely monitored, lose even more autonomy to these machines? And if they do will that lead to better outcomes?

On the other hand, could this sort of assistance lower the experience required for surgeons to take on new types of operations? Does this allow for consultant-level advice to be democratised and allow for surgeons to specialise in execution and surgical skill rather than specific operations?

For now these questions remain unanswered but this successful surgery means you don’t have to be a brain surgeon to know the clinical establishment must start considering how they will answer these questions and work with this technology.

Share

As ministers consider whether traditional television broadcasting should continue until 2034 or 2044 with the Freeview switch off, Natalie Ceeney CBE argues that postponing the transition risks leaving vulnerable households with a declining service while denying them the wider benefits of digital inclusion.

Somewhere in Britain this week, someone is not thinking about their television. It works. The picture is fine. There is an aerial on the roof that has not needed attention in a decade.

What that viewer almost certainly does not know is that Whitehall is deciding when that signal should be switched off for good and replaced by television delivered through an internet connection: 2034 or 2044. With the consultation on the future of digital terrestrial television closing next week, that seemingly technical choice will shape how millions of people cope with the next decade of change.

Subscribe now

The hidden cost of delaying change

The case for the later date sounds like the kinder one. Give people longer. Do not force change upon those who are older, poorer or less confident with technology. Let things move at their own pace.

I understand the instinct. I have spent much of my career leading institutions built to protect people who feel most exposed to change. But delay, however well meant, is rarely kind in practice. It is usually what causes the most damage.

Here is what actually happens if we wait. Digital terrestrial television will not simply hold steady for another decade while everything else moves on. The service will deteriorate. Fewer channels will be able to justify serving a shrinking audience, and investment will go elsewhere.

The households left relying on it, disproportionately older, poorer and more likely to include disabled people, will spend a decade watching a declining service before being required to switch anyway.

Many are already paying a hidden tax for being offline: up to 25 per cent more for essential goods and services, amounting to around £500 a year on average, because they cannot shop around online. Delay does not spare anyone the transition. It guarantees that they experience the worst version of it, on top of a cost they are already paying.

I recognise this pattern. Britain has lived through it before, at far greater cost. Across the late twentieth century, governments allowed industrial change to happen through drift rather than through a plan. They were reluctant to force painful choices upon communities and happier to let market forces set the pace.

Nobody intended to hollow out the towns that bore the cost. It happened one deferred decision at a time. We are still repairing the damage 40 years later.

We are approaching a version of the same choice again. This time, it is unfolding simultaneously across broadcasting, banking, telecommunications and public services, with artificial intelligence accelerating every one of those transitions.

Television is simply the clearest and smallest example of a decision the country will face repeatedly over the next 10 years.

Share

Managing the transition on purpose

What is different now is that we have no excuse for not knowing better. We know what separates countries managing digital transitions successfully from those that are not: reliable connectivity; services designed to be simple; transitions that are planned and dated rather than left to drift; clear accountability; and support built in from the outset, rather than bolted on after things go wrong.

None of this is theoretical. Last week, The Connection Project brought together organisations spanning banking, broadcasting, telecommunications and the third sector to set out how Britain can do exactly that.

Our new Connected report argues that these transitions can no longer be managed separately. The infrastructure, investment and support that people need increasingly depend upon one another. Other countries have already shown that this approach works.

That is why the decision now facing the Government matters far beyond television. Choosing 2034 rather than 2044, and designing the transition around the people most likely to struggle with it, would do more than settle a broadcasting question.

It would connect people to jobs, healthcare and social care, while putting money back into the pockets of households that can least afford to lose it. Above all, it would show that Britain can manage a technological transition on purpose, rather than merely survive one. This would provide a model the country will need again very soon.

The kindest thing we can do for the people about whom we worry most is not simply to give them more time. It is to ensure that they never have to live through the worst version of the change at all.

Subscribe now

Athena Lamnisos

Chief Executive, The Eve Appeal

With cervical cancer elimination within reach, this is the time to turbo charge progress and keep the pressure on, writes Chief Executive of The Eve Appeal, Athena Lamnisos. This week, the Government announced the rollout of at-home HPV self-testing kits for women and people with a cervix who have not attended cervical screening following an invitation.

Eliminating cervical cancer isn’t just a grand ambition – it’s an achievable reality. Research, investment in understanding cancer development and risk factors, vaccines and tests, including HPV Testing, that can be scaled and used at the right time, with the right people, have brought us to this amazing point. For the first time, we have the tools to eliminate a type of cancer. How brilliant would that be? Now we need to make sure that everyone has equitable access to use them.

Science gave us the critical information that the vast majority of cervical cancers develop because of a very commonly occurring virus – Human Papillomavirus (HPV). It has many strains, and most people’s immune systems will clear it from their bodies within two years. Around 80% of us will come into contact with it at some point during our lives, and for some of us, it sticks around and causes cell changes that can result in cancer developing. The high-risk strains of HPV (the ones which can lead to the development of cancer) can cause some head and neck cancers, anal, cervical, vulval, vaginal and penile cancer.

Vaccination and screening are essential to eliminating cervical cancer

We can only eliminate cervical cancer by improving uptake of our successful NHS programmes: HPV vaccination and cervical screening. The HPV vaccine is delivered through the schools’ vaccination programme and is available to all Year 8s (and S2s in Scotland). It’s a gender-neutral vaccination (HPV doesn’t discriminate!) and it’s vital that parents and carers heading back to school in September sign the consent letter which might be lurking in their email inbox or at the bottom of their child’s rucksack. Evidence from people vaccinated against HPV in England, who are now in their early 30s, shows that no cases of cervical cancer have been diagnosed within the group studied.

Vaccination offers incredible protection, but we still need eligible women and people with a cervix aged 24 – 64 to attend cervical screening when they’re invited. The HPV vaccine doesn’t cover all strains of high-risk HPV, and there are millions out there who are too old to have been offered the HPV vaccination at school. The NHS Cervical Screening Programme is extremely effective at preventing cervical cancers and it is estimated it saved 5,000 lives a year in England.

How at-home HPV testing could overcome barriers to cervical screening

This week, a new option is being rolled out, which offers an HPV self-testing kit to women and people with a cervix who have not attended cervical screening following an invitation. This is brilliant news because we know from the patients we speak to at The Eve Appeal (the UK’s leading gynaecological cancers charity) that there are many reasons why those eligible for cervical screening don’t attend.

Challenges around the type of test it is, limited awareness around HPV and its role in cancer development, as well as practical barriers such as problems around booking and attending an appointment, stop many from going. Some people face particular barriers to cervical screening, making them less likely to attend and thereby exacerbating existing health inequalities.

Cervical screening uptake rates have been falling in England and are still below the 70% target needed to reach elimination by 2040. Self-testing, which can be done at home, will be a step change for many. It will enable people who don’t attend cervical screening to find out if they have high-risk HPV with a less invasive test, in the privacy of their own home.

They will be sent a kit in the post, with clear instructions and a pre-paid envelope for posting the sample back. If someone finds out they have high-risk HPV, they will then need to go for a cervical screening test so their cervical cells can be checked for changes, which need monitoring or treating to prevent them from progressing to cervical cancer.

HPV self-testing won’t replace cervical screening, which is still the gold standard test for preventing cervical cancer, but it will help many by presenting another option to take the first step of the screening pathway. At Eve, we welcome this new option within the NHS screening programme and its focus on supporting the people that need it most. Addressing the existing health inequalities through new service developments is absolutely vital.

There’s a lot of talk about the need for innovation in health and in the NHS. Global brands adjust their services and models of delivery swiftly and seem to embrace change. In health, things seem to take much longer. That’s often for a very good reason. Innovating is one thing, ensuring that new services are equitable and reach those who need them most and benefit the biggest population takes time. With the introduction of self-testing this week, the NHS has demonstrated that it can embrace innovation and deliver more and better options for those who face the biggest barriers to looking after their health.

Having more flexible options, tailored information and appropriate support is important in helping people attend cancer screening when invited. HPV self-testing is not a replacement for clinician-taken cervical screening. Although it will help many people, it will not overcome every barrier. We will continue to support people attending screening, help make appointments more comfortable and accessible, and press for further innovation to improve uptake. We have a national goal and a plan to achieve it. Now we must maintain the momentum and prevent every case of cervical cancer that we can.

In what they bill as a historic council housebuilding comeback, the Government today has announced the allocation of nearly £10 billion to 33 strategic partners including councils that will build 70,000 homes over the next ten years.

The programme is targeted that 60% of these affordable homes will be for Social Rent.

These allocations are the first in the £39 billion Social and Affordable Homes Programme.

Subscribe now

Affordable Homes: The Numbers

I must admit that I am getting housing announcement fatigue. Perhaps that is unfair to lay at the feet of the new Andy Burnham led Government but Labour have been in for two years. Their signature housing promise was to build 1.5 million homes over the Parliament, or 300,000 per year.

That is an ambitious and worthy goal.

As you can see from this chart. The UK has failed to build much more than 200,000 homes per year since the 1970s.

As you may also notice, the reason is for the end of council house construction. Good news! Andy Burnham has pledged to bring back council house construction.

The bad news is that he has not specified how he will achieve this.

Labour’s Record

Currently Labour has:

· Restored mandatory local housing targets

· Rewritten The National Planning Policy Framework to require councils to build

· Targeted lower quality Green Belt areas for development as the “Grey Belt”

· Passed the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 to speed up planning permission

· Created the £39 billion Social and Affordable Homes Programme for 2026-36

· Extended preferential borrowing rates for council housebuilding

· Proposed seven new towns

The net result has been effectively no increase in building. If you can show me the housing boom on the below graph I would be very impressed.

Every year that passes, the Labour target of 1.5 million homes this Parliament gets harder to hit.

Generously speaking, we build about 200,000 homes per year. To hit the target from 2024 we needed to average 300,000 homes per year. After two years of Labour Government we now have have a 200,000 home deficit. So for the remainder of the Parliament we will have to build 367,000 homes per year.

This is impossible.

Labour have allocated £39 billion to this problem. Today’s £9.6 billion allocation is for 70,000 homes over ten years assumes a per unit cost of £135,000, which feels ambitious to me, and in any case blows the target date for the 1.5 million homes out of the water.

If we were to divide £39 billion by the actual number of homes required to hit Labours target (assuming a base rate of 200,000 homes per year we know we can build), then they have allocated about £78,000 per home required.

Laughable.

Right To Buy

The problem at the heart of British housing policy is the Right To Buy. The fiendishly popular, Thatcher era policy that gives council tenants the Right To Buy their council homes at a discounted rate.

As you can see from the first graph, this 1980 policy all but did for council construction. It destroyed the incentive to build as councils could no longer hold onto expensive assets they had built or sell them for more than they cost to build. Worse, it created a policy that is great for individual council tenants but toxic to the institution of council housing.

Politically, it has been a third rail. Labour have been scared to touch it for forty years. Without effectively ending the Right To Buy, and somehow entrenching that situation so that the next Tory government doesn’t immediately undo it, then there is no incentive for councils to build.

As you can see from the above, councils are only starting to recover from Coalition-era spending cuts and with an ever-increasing social care burden, they are unlikely to be in a position to bail out the Government’s housing target without financial incentives to do so.

Share

Burnham’s Test

The housing target remains in place, Burnham has pledged to get councils building again, he has pledged to end rough sleeping by Christmas, and best of all, The Social Housing Bill was introduced in the Lords in May. It’s specific remit, to reform the Right To Buy scheme to protect social housing stock. What more could I possibly want?

Reading a summary of the Bill, it takes an axe to Right To Buy as it stands:

· New homes exempt from Right to Buy for 35 years, giving councils confidence they can retain homes they build.

· Council market-rent homes exempt from Right to Buy, allowing rental income to cross-subsidise new social housing.

· Lower Right to Buy discounts, reducing losses when council homes are sold.

· Rural homes exempt from Right to Buy, protecting stock that is difficult and expensive to replace.

· Permanent council right of first refusal, making it easier to bring former council homes back into public ownership.

This is a good thing. If this Bill can re-establish a financial incentive for councils to build, then it will be a triumph. It has currently passed Third Reading in the Lords, the question is will it survive the political scrutiny in the Commons?

So far there has been little blowback over the effective end to Right To Buy so it will be interesting to see if that remains the case when it reaches the Commons this Autumn.

If a storm is brewing, it will be a direct challenge to Burnham’s central pledges as Prime Minister, and an end to any real prospect of this Government making any headway on housing at all.

Subscribe now

The UK will become the first international partner to access Ukraine’s Avengers AI Labs, giving UK researchers and technology companies access to operational battlefield data to develop new Artificial Intelligence- (AI) enabled capabilities.

The agreement, signed in Kyiv by Prime Minister Andy Burnham and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, establishes government, industry, and academic cooperation on defence AI, autonomous systems, cyber security and secure data.

UKAI has welcomed the deal as an opportunity to connect Britain’s AI ecosystem with real-world applications and deepen long-term collaboration between UK and Ukrainian innovators.

The agreement, signed by Prime Minister Andy Burnham and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Kyiv on Monday, will make the UK the first international partner to gain access to Ukraine’s Avengers AI Labs.

The platform collects real-world information from thousands of daylight cameras and infrared sensors operating across the battlefield in Ukraine, capturing millions of objects including tanks, artillery, air-defence systems, infantry positions, Shahed drones, and reconnaissance unmanned aerial vehicles.

That information is then used to train AI models.

For UK researchers, engineers and technology companies, access to the platform could provide an unusually large source of real-world operational data through which new AI systems can be developed and tested.

In return, Ukraine will gain greater access to Britain’s universities, researchers and technology companies as the two countries seek to turn battlefield experience into technologies that could have applications well beyond the war.

From battlefield innovation to a long-term technology partnership

The Government said the initial focus would be defence and national security, bringing together engineers, academics, businesses and military operational expertise from both countries through what it described as an AI cell.

However, ministers believe some of the resulting technologies could eventually have civilian applications in areas including critical infrastructure, transport, and energy.

The agreement forms part of the wider UK-Ukraine 100 Year Partnership and establishes a framework intended to extend beyond individual defence projects.

Prime Minister Andy Burnham said:

“Ukraine has become one of the world’s leading innovators in defence technology, forged through courage, ingenuity, and the hard lessons of war.

“This groundbreaking partnership will bring together Ukraine’s unrivalled operational experience with Britain’s world-class AI ecosystem, giving us the opportunity to develop the technologies of the future, changing lives here in Britain and saving lives on the battlefield in Ukraine.

“By combining Ukrainian battlefield data with UK expertise, we will accelerate the development of capabilities that not only strengthen our national security but better protect our critical infrastructure and growth in every postcode here at home.”

The accompanying Joint Declaration of Intent provides greater detail about how that cooperation will operate.

It commits the two countries to developing next-generation AI-enabled armed forces and establishes three main pillars of cooperation.

Government-to-government collaboration will cover areas including jointly developed models, secure data and computing pathways and AI assurance.

Industry will work through those government arrangements to develop, test and deploy technology against agreed operational challenges.

Universities and research organisations will meanwhile collaborate in areas including autonomous systems, AI assurance, cyber security and synthetic data.

The declaration also commits both countries to protections around data sovereignty, intellectual property and export controls, while seeking interoperability with NATO systems.

Importantly, the partnership will initially follow a pilot-first approach rather than attempting to establish an entirely new institutional structure before practical projects have been tested.

UK start-ups already testing technology

That work has already begun.

Three UK start-ups – Bristol-based Sintela, Oxford-based Mind Foundry, and London-based Skyral – are involved in pilot projects combining Ukrainian operational data with UK-developed technology.

One of the first systems is preparing to be deployed at a UK defence site.

The technology uses buried fibre-optic cables as enormous AI-enabled sensors capable of detecting activity around protected sites.

Although initially designed to help protect military facilities from protesters and hostile actors attempting to gather intelligence, ministers believe similar systems could eventually be used around airports, prisons, railway infrastructure, and energy facilities.

A second project will examine next-generation low-power AI chips for drones, robotics, and autonomous systems.

Reducing the amount of energy required for onboard AI could allow autonomous systems to operate for longer periods and respond more quickly in environments where conventional communications or computing infrastructure is unavailable.

Defence Secretary Wes Streeting said:

“Ukraine is pushing the frontier of defence innovation as they bravely resist Putin’s illegal invasion. From supporting with military equipment and training to co-developing cutting-edge technology, the UK will stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Ukraine for as long as it takes.

“By combining the UK’s world-leading scientists, engineers and tech companies with Ukraine’s unique battlefield experience and data, we will strengthen both of our nations’ defence and security.”

‘AI sovereignty in practice’

The Government is also presenting the agreement as part of its wider ambition to strengthen sovereign UK technological capability.

Rather than sovereignty meaning that every component of an AI system must be designed or manufactured domestically, the partnership demonstrates an approach in which Britain seeks control over strategically important capabilities while collaborating with trusted international partners.

Minister for AI Kanishka Narayan said:

“Britain and Ukraine are the closest of partners. Ukraine’s extraordinary courage on the battlefield has been matched by remarkable technological ingenuity.

“By giving UK start-ups, researchers and engineers access to insights from its Avengers AI platform, we are taking that partnership further and helping Britain develop the next generation of defence technology.

“This is AI sovereignty in practice: building our own capabilities and turning frontline experience into systems that protect our armed forces overseas and our critical infrastructure at home.”

The partnership comes as the Government increasingly considers AI not simply as an economic or public-service technology, but as part of the UK’s national security and strategic infrastructure.

The Joint Declaration explicitly recognises AI, autonomous systems and network-enabled capabilities as increasingly important to modern warfare and argues that maintaining a technological advantage will form part of future deterrence.

It also creates scope for technologies developed jointly by Britain and Ukraine eventually to be shared with trusted allies and partners where both governments agree.

UKAI welcomes opportunity for collaboration

The trade association for the AI economy in the UK, UKAI, welcomed the agreement and the opportunities it could create for UK technology companies, researchers and universities.

A UKAI spokesperson said:

“This is a significant development for the UK AI ecosystem and demonstrates what can be achieved when government, industry, academia, and end users collaborate around clearly defined real-world challenges.

“Ukraine has developed extraordinary technological and operational expertise under the most difficult circumstances, while the UK has world-leading AI companies, researchers, and universities. Bringing those capabilities together can support both countries while creating lessons and technologies with applications across defence, resilience, and the protection of critical national infrastructure.

“UKAI welcomes the Government’s commitment to involving UK start-ups and technology companies from the outset. We look forward to working with government, our members, and partners across the Ukrainian technology community to explore how that collaboration can be expanded, while ensuring that responsible development, security and effective AI assurance remain at the heart of deployment.”

For the UK AI industry, the significance of Avengers AI Labs may extend beyond access to another dataset.

One persistent challenge when developing sophisticated AI systems is securing high-quality information from real operating environments against which technology can be trained and evaluated.

Ukraine has accumulated exactly that kind of information through more than four years of intensive warfare.

The challenge for both governments will now be turning access to that experience into deployable capabilities while maintaining the safeguards around sensitive military data, intellectual property, and national security set out in the agreement.

A wider defence relationship

The AI agreement was one of several announcements made during Burnham’s visit to Ukraine.

The Prime Minister also announced that the Government had agreed that defence company MBDA could release classified information relating to UK components within the long-range SCALP missile.

The move is intended to support the establishment of local assembly lines in Ukraine.

Together, the announcements point towards an evolution in the UK-Ukraine defence relationship: away from a model centred predominantly on Britain supplying weapons and equipment towards one involving increasing amounts of joint development, industrial cooperation, and technology sharing.

The Artificial Intelligence Partnership makes that shift explicit.

Rather than treating Ukraine simply as the recipient of Western technology, the agreement recognises the country as an increasingly important source of defence innovation in its own right – and seeks to combine that experience with Britain’s research base, technology industry and AI ecosystem.

The next test will be whether the pilot projects can be converted into operational technologies at sufficient speed and scale.

Under the declaration signed in Kyiv, further implementation arrangements are expected to be developed over the coming months.

Photo: Lauren Hurley/No 10 Downing Street

Andy Burnham in Kyiv today after arriving in the Ukrainian capital on his first international visit to mark the country’s Independence Day.

The Prime Minister will reiterate the UK’s ongoing support for the Ukrainian war effort as Russia last week issued threats to the new Prime Minister. In response to the use of British-made drones in Ukrainian attacks inside Russia, the Russian Embassy released a statement: ““London’s actions will inevitably carry consequences for which it will have to answer”.

Subscribe now

New Commitments

The Prime Minister has a announced that the Ukrainians will now have access to classified information on UK components for the “Storm Shadow” long range cruise missile developed by MBDA.

The intention is that this will support a new Franco-Ukrainian production of the missiles within Ukraine’s borders. The missile is an important element of Ukraine long range strike capability and is launched from their Soviet legacy SU-24 strike jets.

As the war has developed since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, the manufacture, capability and cost of long-range strike munitions have been an area of intense competition. The UK has also instituted “Project Brakestop” to rapidly develop low-cost long-range weapons alongside Ukraine.

Share

Support So Far

The UK has been one of Ukraine’s most significant backers, both before and particularly since the full-scale Russian invasion of 2022.

So far the UK has committed £25 billion for Ukraine during the four years of war, including £16 billion in military support (though some of this sum is in loans). For comparison the annual UK defence budget is around £60-70 billion.

The UK has also imposed wide ranging economic sanctions on Russia, including oil sanctions which have resulted in a Russian “shadow fleet” of 600 ships attempting to maintain Russia’s oil trade. In June, Royal Marine Commandos boarded and took a “shadow fleet” oil tanker in the English channel.

Strategic Situation

Tensions between Russia and the UK predate the Russian invasion of Ukraine, as the attempted murder of the Skripals in Salisbury, the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, and repeated airspace violations illustrate.

Over the course of the war the Ukrainians have degraded Russian military capability, destroying strategic bombers, sinking the Russian Black Sea fleet and depleting their Soviet era land vehicle stockpiles.

At the same time NATO has added Sweden and Finland to their ranks and committed to a new 3.5% of GDP core defence spending target.

Final Thought

Despite the UK’s recent rapid turnover of Prime Ministers, five since the Russian full-scale invasion, British resolve seems unwavering in support of Ukraine.

Strategically, this seems like a shrewd bet, for the cost of a fraction of our defence budget and no British lives, the Ukrainians are crippling our primary strategic threat. Russian land forces have been denuded of vehicles, their black sea fleet largely lies on the ocean floor and their airframes are getting worn out if not completely destroyed.

When the Russian’s invaded in 2022, they were part way through a defence modernisation programme, much of which has now been put on hold as simply supplying their forces has become the priority. NATO was drifting, and as French President Emmanuel Macron put it in 2019, experiencing “brain death”.

Now the alliance is gearing up again, fuelled by valuable insights provided by Ukraine and facing a Russia that is struggling to protect it’s own borders.

The war has seen several twists and turns but it seems British support for Ukraine will continue until Russia comes to terms.

The government has announced a series of measures to tackle illegal waste dumping across Britain.

It includes raising the maximum fine for those found to have dumped waste illegally, and granting more power to regional mayors and local council leaders.

Subscribe now

A statement from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), also announced that the government will directly fund clean-up operations at three “super sites”.

Prime Minister Andy Burnham echoed his first speech as Labour Leader, when he said he hoped his fly-tipping strategy will “bring hope back to Britain’s communities.

What Has Been Announced?

The new fly-tipping strategy was announced jointly by Burnham and Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Angela Eagle.

The statement said that DEFRA will focus on “better use of drones, a bigger role for the police and the National Crime Agency, more Environmental Agency (EA) officers on the front line, and a steep rise in fines”.

Eagle herself will chair a new Waste Crime Crackdown Group, which aims to unite environmental regulators, such as the EA, with local law enforcement teams.

She said that the government were “cleaning up sites, but we are also stopping the cycle, driving faster prevention and disruption, better intelligence, and stronger coordination across the system.”

Police officers will now be given access to AI-controlled drones, which are designed to detect illegal waste dumping as it happens. It is hoped that this will allow officers to respond more quickly to illegal activity.

On top of this, the maximum fine for individual found to be dumping waste illegally will rise from £300 to £5,000.

“The days of making easy money out of waste are over” the Prime Minister said in Wednesday’s announcement.

Burnham’s fly-tipping strategy builds on the measures set out by Keir Starmer’s government in March’s Waste Crime Action Plan.

These included the introduction of digital waste tracking, to allow law enforcement officers to better understand the methods used by organised waste dumping gangs. As well as the creation of the Online Waste Hub, which provides the public with information on the EA’s efforts to reduce illegal waste dumping.

Share

The Scale of the Problem

The EA’s National Waste Crime Survey, published in July 2025, estimated that roughly 20% of all UK waste was being managed illegally.

87% of farmers and landowners surveyed reported being affected by small scale fly-tipping, with 21% saying they had been affected by large scale fly-tipping.

The problem of large scale fly-tipping was made even more apparent by a BBC investigation from March this year.

This research identified 11 “super sites”, where 20,000 tonnes or more of rubbish had been dumped illegally, including one in Andy Burnham’s own constituency of Makerfield.

While the clear-up operation at this specific site has already received government funding, reports from the Guardian suggest that locals are unimpressed with the progress made so far.

The EA hopes that Burnham’s own fly-tipping strategy will yield more success.

“By strengthening our intelligence and analysis capability” said EA Chief Executive Philip Duffy, “EA teams will be better placed to stay well ahead of the criminals behind this activity and support the recover of the places we call home.”

Reducing the scale of illegal waste disposal may also bring financial benefits to the government, with landfill tax evasion costing the government an estimated £150 million in 2023-24.

The Regional Perspective

The new fly-tipping strategy is another area Burnham has identified as being an opportunity to devolve power to regional mayors.

The Mayors of West Yorkshire (Tracy Brabin, Labour) and Greater Manchester (Bev Craig, Labour) will reportedly be the first to be involved with the “new region-led approaches to waste crime”.

These will “give Mayors and council leaders the lead in co-ordinating councils, police, regulators, and other enforcement agencies” says DEFRA, “with decisions driven by regional intelligence and by the communities worst affected.

Burnham’s fly-tipping strategy also includes specific plans to deal with three of the “super sites” identified by the BBC.

Waste sites at: Power Station Road, Isle of Sheppey, Kent; Aymer Close, Runnymede, Surrey; and Midland Road, Bradford, West Yorkshire, will all receive direct funding towards their clean-up operations.

DEFRA says these sites were chosen based on “scale, risk to nearby communities, environmental damage, and links to persistent non-compliance and organised waste crime.”

Final Thought

Efforts to reduce illegal waste dumping, and improve the living conditions of people in the worst affected areas, are something a vast majority of the public can support.

This will only remain the case though, if they prove to be effective.

Burnham’s decision to announce the fly-tipping strategy so soon after the Waste Crime Action Plan shows both an acknowledgment of the need for urgent and decisive action, as well as a lack of faith in the pre-existing measures.

The emphasis on the devolution aspects of the strategy also represents Burnham’s commitment to empowering regional mayors. This must however be balanced against the need for the government to maintain control over such an important and ambitious scheme.

In an opinion piece in the Guardian, the Prime Minister has announced £442m for a national drive in England to ensure that no one is forced into rough sleeping this Christmas.

This represents an extra £102m on top of £340 of funding announced in July.

He said “My first instruction as Prime Minister was to end rough sleeping. And it’s why today we’re getting started with a national drive to get everyone in for Christmas.”

Rough Sleeping Context

The number of rough sleepers has more than doubled since 2010 with 2025 hitting the highest number since the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government Rough Sleeping Snapshot began.

Significantly fewer people were sleeping rough during the pandemic as the Government ensured that everyone was offered a bed as part of the “Everyone In” efforts to stem to the transmission of Covid-19.

Homelessness charity Shelter report that 37,000 people were helped by the Government’s efforts up to August 2021.

According to the snapshot in 2025, 86% of rough sleepers are 26 and over, 82% are men and 65% are British. These percentages hold broadly steady over the years despite significant increases in the total number of rough sleepers.

When in February, the 2025 snapshot was released however Chief Executive of Crisis, a homelessness charity, Matt Downie, said “Today’s figures paint a bleak picture of the state of the nation. People are being forced to sleep on the streets at unprecedented levels, exposed to danger and violence. Thousands more people are then hidden from the official statistics, particularly women forced to sleep rough.” So the situation could be worse than the snapshot shows.

Subscribe now

Prime Minister’s Pledge

On entering Downing Street last month, Burnham’s first pledge was to end rough sleeping. In July he pledged £340m saying This is something a government can fix if it chooses to. Today, I’m choosing to.”

That announcement said that local leaders would lead the delivery of a programme using local-led approaches that have helped tackle rough sleeping.

In today’s pledge, Housing Secretary Angela Rayner said Working alongside councils, mayors and charities, we’re backing local areas to tackle rough sleeping at its roots, giving people the security, dignity and opportunity they deserve, and restoring hope to those who have been let down for far too long.”

The Government is currently confirming project allocations for this money, which is funded from Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government Rough unallocated funds.

The funding will include provision for over 1,000 settled homes over the next three years.

Areas in England with the worst rough sleeping problems will be receiving the most funding.

£8.4 million of the new funding is going specifically to the Ending Homelessness in Communities Fund which funds small to medium sized voluntary, community and faith sector charities.

Final thought

One month into Burnham’s tenure, it’s unclear where the line between communications and governing strategies is.

Is this a re-announcement or the next step in fulfilling a pledge, or both?

Is this the sign of a Government committed to maintaining momentum on it’s pledges or committed to maintaining momentum in announcements? Or both?

Which side of the line the public perceives the Burnham project to be on will be a defining question of his premiership.

Share

• Council By-elections - 32

• Police and Crime Commissioner Election - 1 (Norfolk)

• Mayoral Election - 1 (Greater Manchester)

Subscribe now

Conservatives

• Made a net gain of 2 councillors - The only party to make a net gain

• Lost divisions to: Reform UK / Green Party

• Gained divisions from: Reform UK / Labour / Liberal Democrats / Independent

Worth Watching: Potential broadening of support - the Conservatives gain of Dereham Toftwood from Labour. While tactical voting played a part, as the only non-Reform options were Conservatives or Labour, the fact that they chose the Conservatives is interesting as the division is slightly atypical for Conservatives. It has higher levels of deprivation, unemployment and fewer residents with a degree.

Reform UK

• Unchanged in number of councillors - 5

• Lost divisions to: Conservatives / Labour

• Gained divisions from: Conservatives / Labour / Independent

• Won the Norfolk Police and Crime Commissioner election.

Worth Watching: Reform UK’s ability to make gains in non-‘Red Wall’ areas, namely urban southern areas. They lost two divisions in Thurrock, Essex, which both aligned with other areas where Reform UK’s has had success, with the exception of the divisions having a higher proportion of residents with a degree.

July Council By-election Results

Labour

• Net loss of 1 councillor

• Lost divisions to: Conservatives / Green Party / Reform UK

• Gained divisions from: Green Party / Reform UK

Worth Watching: The ‘Burnham Bounce’ effect. Labour had a higher success rate this month than in June (19% vs 13%). This may be evidence that Burnham is consolidating support on the left, with the Thurrock by-elections being a good example. In one division, the Green Party vote share fell from an average of 29% to 27.5%, while in the other it fell from 17.4% to 8.8%.

Green Party

• Net loss of 1 councillor

• Lost divisions to: Labour / Liberal Democrats

• Gained divisions from: Labour

Worth Watching: Losing Lambeth is potentially an early warning sign that the drop in Zack Polanski’s personal approval rating is impacting the Green Party’s support. More broadly, they achieved a vote share of 15% or higher in 29% of elections, down from 43% in June.

Liberal Democrats

• Unchanged in number of councillors - 1

• Lost divisions to: Conservatives

• Gained a division from: Green Party

Worth Watching: Their victory over the Green Party in Lambeth was unexpected. It is worth monitoring their performance in future London council by-elections to see whether they can make further inroads in Green Party areas.

Share

Polling

Westminster Voting Intention

In national polling, for the first time since early to mid 2025, Reform UK are no longer leading, with Labour experiencing a significant improvement under Andy Burnham.

The Conservatives also experienced a small uptick in support, while the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party saw a decrease in support.

Voting Intention Changes - June to July

Source: YouGov/More in Common/Find Out Now - Weekly GB voting intention: data from the last week of month. Analysis: MDY Strategy. Methodology: Mean of data from each polling company - equal weighting given to each company.

Other Interesting Polling

Climate and Nature - More in Common

• Respondents were asked how worried they were about a variety of issues and the potential future impact for young people.

• 54% of Reform UK 2024 voters said they were “very” or “somewhat” worried about climate change.

• https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/07-26_WWF_Snap_Poll.xlsx

Why it’s interesting - Other polling indicates Reform UK voters are not supportive net-zero. This contradiction may imply that they acknowledge the impact of climate change but do not think the benefits of current policies outweigh their drawbacks.

Predictions for Upcoming By-elections

Methodology Behind Predictions

Penistone East: Local Factors - Historically Conservative and demographically well aligned with the Conservative Party’s recent successes. National Factors - improvements in polling for Kemi Badenoch and the Conservative Party.

Harraby South: Local Factors - Younger and less deprived than many areas where Reform has recently made gains. National Factors - Reform has dropped in the polls while Labour has increased its support and shown early signs of uniting the left.

St Neots Eynesbury: Local Factors - The rapid resignation of the Reform Councillor and a former Independent councillor standing for the Liberal Democrats. Demographically, it is not dissimilar to areas where the Liberal Democrats took a seat from Reform in East Devon. National Factors - A drop in Reform’s polling and fall in a Farage’s personal ratings make tactical voting highly likely.

Leen Valley: Local Factors: Young and educated, with a high proportion of ethnic minority residents. In the division and surrounding areas, Labour has historically been strong. Weak because of Nottingham Independence Association - former Labour Councillors who resigned because of the party’s stance on Gaza. National Factor - Burnham potentially uniting the left.

Guston, Kingsdown & St Margaret’s-at-Cliffe: Local Factors - it is closely aligned with other areas of Conservative success and aligns with the Conservatives core base.

Southey: Local Factors - Demographically it is highly aligned with recent Reform successes. National Factors - Reform is still retaining high percentage of its 2024 voters who demographically align with this division.

Billinge & Seneley Green: Local Factors: An older electorate, but with a slightly higher deprivation level compared with the Conservatives recent successes.

Trinity: Local Factors: Recent Conservative gains on the council in May and the resignation of the Labour Councillor only elected in May. Demographically, it aligns with aspirational Conservative. National Factors - Burnham has signalled an intention to shift the focus away from London and return Labour to its traditional roots.

Mark Yale is a freelance political strategist with MDY Strategy. He specialises in data-led campaigns, messaging and stakeholder research. You can get in touch with him here.

Alan Milburn, former cabinet minister and chair of the Social Mobility Commission has called for specialist internships for young people with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). He wants these to be put on “turbocharge” to fix the Not in Education, Employment or Training (NEETs) crisis among young people.

Subscribe now

Social Mobility Commission

The number of 16-24 year olds that are NEET is now over a million according to the ONS, a problem that Milburn’s Social Mobility Commission has been tasked with finding solutions to.

Their initial 200 page report set out the problems faced by young people, with a further report later this year setting out recommendations to Government as to how to alleviate the NEET problem.

Milburn previously states that the NEET problem has been decades in the making. Citing declines over the last decade in low and medium skilled jobs, Saturday jobs, roles in hospitality, apprenticeship starts and entry level jobs he paints a bleak picture for young people looking for work. All this before any impact from the “AI revolution” is felt.

Special Needs Internships

The Social Mobility Commission will recommend expanding supported internships for 16-24 year olds with Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs).

Employers with participating schemes include the NHS, Asda and Amazon.

A evaluation conducted by the Department of Education concluded that 48% of supported interns entered paid work with some providers achieving rates of 70%.

Currently there around 4,500 supported internships in England. Milburn pointed out that due to a lack of capacity, access to these internships varies between regions. He said:

“Supported internships have got such an effective track record. With the best ones around 70% of the people on them end up in paid employment.”

“In my view we have to turbocharge support – and at the moment the system is not set up to do that.”

Share

Support from Primary School

Milburn also said that his review will consider intervention as early as in Primary School, to identify children at risk of becoming NEET when they leave the education system.

“The warning signs are there from a very early, early age. You know, frankly from preschool.”

“Primary schools should be identifying children who are at risk of being Neet.”

He did not speculate how a major expansion of supported internships should be funded.

His final recommendations are expected in autumn 2026.

Final Thought

Bridging the gap between education and work and establishing habits that could last young people a lifetime are at the heart of these proposals.

Given the success of some schemes supporting special needs internships, and the current paltry number of spaces (4,500) available for the 1 million NEETs, they seem like a good investment for a Government eager to decrease youth unemployment and the welfare bill.

However, as with any expansion it will be essential to maintain quality. It’s clear that these schemes have variable success at getting NEETs into immediate employment and although that is not the only metric of success, any Chancellor investing money in these schemes will want to see it reflected in the welfare bill.

The successes of these schemes also bring to mind the ‘nudge theory’ ideas of the early Cameron term. Setting sensible defaults, and entrenching useful habits rather than reinforcing the cliff edge ending to structured education could be something that Government can, and would be good at supporting.

Only time will tell whether it will reduce youth unemployment, or reduce it enough to please the electorate.

Subscribe now

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has won the Clacton by-election, increasing his majority in the seat from 18.3% in 2024 to 36.4%. His vote tally increased from 21,225 to 22,239.

The result marks the end of a bizarre campaign, triggered by Farage himself when he resigned as an MP over an investigation into a personal donation he received in 2024.

The investigation into Farage is expected to resume, and could potentially trigger another by-election.

Farage himself did not attend the count, saying that “I am damned if I am going to stand on a stage, having won a resounding victory… and be demeaned and humiliated by nobodies.”

How on Earth Did We Get Here?

Farage announced his resignation as MP for Clacton, as well as his intention to represent Reform UK in the subsequent by-election, on July 7th.

This followed mounting speculation that Farage could be required to fight a by-election by the result of a parliamentary investigation.

The investigation, which was paused during the by-election campaign, surrounded an undeclared donation Farage received from Thai-based cryptocurrency investor Christopher Harborne, prior to his election as an MP at the 2024 General Election.

Farage has said that he was under “no obligation to declare something that is an unconditional, non-political, personal gift.”

Britain’s other political parties have condemned Farage’s resignation as a cynical attempt to avoid facing the consequences of the investigation.

“Nobody is going to get drawn into what is a political stunt” said the then Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper at the beginning of the campaign.

While Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch described the by-election as a “fake election, which Nigel Farage is causing to distract people from what is happening.”

The refusal of Labour, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party, and Restore Britain to stand candidates in Clacton ensured that Farage would be the clear favourite to retain his seat.

Despite the absence of the major parties, a record 34 candidates were listed on the ballot paper.

This included the satirical candidate Count Binface, whose large online profile meant he quickly became seen as the primary protest candidate.

What Does This Result Mean?

Despite Farage’s status as the clear favourite throughout the campaign, he will undoubtedly be pleased to have won the by-election, with an increased majority.

The fact he has spent much of the summer embroiled first in a parliamentary investigation, and then in an election where his leading opponent has been a sentient bin, may well have harmed the Reform UK leader’s personal image, despite his increased majority.

Farage was never likely to lose this seat. A poll from Survation conducted between July 16th and 24th put him on 73% of the vote, clearly ahead of nearest challengers Count Binface on 20%, and the Reclaim Party’s Laurence Fox on 2%.

A national poll conducted at a similar time by More in Common found that 37% of respondents wanted Count Binface to win the Clacton by-election, compared to just 32% who favoured Farage.

Reform’s poll ratings have also fallen recently.

More in Common estimated Reform had a 28% share of the national vote at the beginning of May, before the Christopher Harborne donations were first reported. This had dropped to 25% in a Yougov poll conducted the day before Farage’s resignation, and 22% in Yougov’s poll from the week before the by-election.

For Count Binface, this result marks something of a political breakthrough.

The candidate, whose real name is John David Harvey, has previously stood in the 2017 (under the name Lord Buckethead), 2019, and 2024 General Election, as well as the 2021 and 2024 London Mayoral Elections, and June’s Makerfield by-election.

This is the first time Binface has received more than 1% of a public vote. With his 26.9% share putting him clearly in second place, albeit a long way behind Farage’s 63.4%.

Binface said he was “gratified” by the result, and pointed out that “In Makerfield eight weeks ago I got 95 votes. So against Nigel Farage compared to Andy Burnham, I am 1,000 time more popular.”

Count Binface was also standing against representatives of the other main parties in Makerfield, and received much less media coverage than he did in Clacton.

What Happens Next?

The investigation into Farage’s handling of the Harborne donation can now resume, now that he has been elected as an MP.

If Farage is found guilty of misconduct then he may be temporarily suspended as an MP, or have to fight another by-election.

It is likely that the other major parties would choose to contest this second vote.

Farage himself is also under investigation by the Metropolitan Police over whether his failure to disclose the Harborne donations amounted to “misconduct in public office”.

A separate investigation by the Metropolitan Police into £500,000 worth of donations that Reform UK received from Fiona Cottrell, mother of the convicted fraudster George Cottrell, is also ongoing.

Final Thought

Nigel Farage triggered this by-election with the aim of using it to spread the narrative that it was a “people v. the establishment” contest.

That was immediately undermined by the refusal of the other major parties to stand candidates, and the unexpected popularity of Count Binface, both among Clacton’s electorate, and the country as a whole.

Reform UK’s recent decline in the polls is almost certainly partially due to the replacement of Keir Starmer as Prime Minister with Andy Burnham, but this distraction is unlikely to have helped Farage’s case.

Farage will however likely use his increased majority as evidence that the electorate support him, whatever result of the parliamentary investigation.

While the investigation into him may not be over, the man who is still bookmakers’ favourite to be Britain’s next Prime Minister, has at least survived this challenge.

The Met Office has issued an amber heat warning for an area of England encompassing London, the Midlands, and some of Yorkshire.

This is in response to the latest in a series of heatwaves which have defined the British summer.

Yet despite these unprecedentedly high temperatures many politicians and journalists continue to lobby for an end to the government’s pursuit of a Net Zero energy sector.

The Minister of State for Energy Michael Shanks says it’s “unbelievable that there could still be people who right now look at what’s happening to fossil fuel markets, and say let’s just build more gas.”

How Hot Actually Is It?

Met Office data suggests that 2026 is on course to be the hottest recorded summer in British history, beating the record which was set only last year.

The average UK temperature between June 1st and August 10th this year was 16.48°C. This is 0.36°C higher than the average for last summer (June 1st to August 31st), and 0.78°C higher than the average temperature during the legendary summer of 1976.

In addition to this, 2026 has already seen more days over 30°C than any other year in British history and the first time the 35°C barrier has been broken in four different calendar months (May, June, July, and August).

Another clear indication of climate change is this summer’s extremely low rainfall. England and Wales experienced their driest July in recorded history, with over two thirds of England currently experiencing a drought.

As well as damaging British wildlife, persistent drought risks causing water shortages, and leaving people without vital resources.

Subscribe now

What is the Government Doing?

The link between greenhouse gas emissions and rising global temperatures has long been known.

While this isn’t perfectly correlated with the UK’s weather conditions, higher average global temperatures increase the risk of abnormally warm and dry conditions throughout Northern Europe, as we have seen in the past two years.

Keir Starmer’s Labour government promised a “phased and responsible” transition away from fossil fuels. This forms part of the government’s target of reaching a state of Net Zero emissions (where all greenhouse gas emissions are offset by other pro-environmental activities) by 2050.

The former Prime Minister also oversaw the passing of the Great British Energy Act in May 2025. This established the publicly owned company Great British Energy with the aim of accelerating investment in renewable energy production.

Despite this, the House of Commons’ Climate Change Committee said that the government was “not moving fast enough to reduce greenhouse gas emissions” in their June 2026 report.

“Energy policy doesn’t sit in isolation from wider economic and industrial policy” Michael Shanks told Dr Simon Evans, Deputy Editor and Senior Policy Editor at specialist climate-change publication Carbon Brief.

In Conversation Here

“When we came in we obviously moved really quickly forward on the clean power mission” Shanks said when asked about factors delaying the transition to Net Zero.

“But every pound of public spending that is spent on building energy infrastructure should result in investment in communities.” Shanks added, implying that the Net Zero objective is being balanced against the government’s desires for economic growth, and investment in traditionally neglected areas.

The Criticisms of Net Zero

Research by Carbon Brief found that 63 editorials calling for the increased extraction of oil from the North Sea basin had been published between January and June this year. This is more than double than the 30 editorials calling for the same thing published throughout 2025.

A study by the Guardian also found that 72% of major newspapers’ coverage of the May and June heatwaves failed to mention climate change.

Both of these suggest there is an institutional unwillingness in the British press to acknowledge the clear link between energy policy, and the record-breaking temperatures the UK is currently experiencing.

The criticism of the government’s Net Zero policies has been particularly harsh.

The Times described pursuing Net Zero as “masochistic”, while The Sun suggested it could lead to a “full-blown energy crisis”. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has also likened Ed Miliband to a “Nigerian military dictator” for his support of Net Zero policies while Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero under Starmer.

Why We Can’t Rely on Oil

The Sun has claimed that if the government diverted Net Zero funding into drilling for oil in the North Sea basin, then the UK “might just have the cheapest electricity in the world”.

This fails to acknowledge that North Sea oil is not a public resource, and would therefore have to be purchased from private companies. This would most likely be at a similar market price to the one the UK currently pays when importing oil from nations such as Norway.

Another flaw in this strategy is the fact the North Sea is considered a “mature basin”, with roughly 90% of its oil already having been extracted, and production currently only 20% as high as it was in 1999.

The efficiency of non-renewable energy sources can also be damaged by the extreme heat which is becoming increasingly common.

Electric Insights, which monitor the proportion of energy UK consumers draw from different sources, have estimated that gas power stations lose 7% of their efficiency, and 13% of their capacity, when temperatures exceed 40°C.

In contrast, using a mix of renewable sources can improve the energy sector’s resilience to a range of different conditions.

“Heatwaves often bring still, but clear conditions” explains Chris Rosslowe, a senior energy analyst for Europe at Ember Energy, “but clear conditions highlight the benefit of wind and solar as a duo.”

The North Sea is also home to 14 wind farms, which, when combined with solar farms, can produce sustainable energy for far longer than a finite supply of North Sea Oil.

Subscribe now

Final Thought

Net Zero is absolutely necessary to slowing the advancement of climate change, and protecting our current way of life.

Global problems require global solutions however, and it is tempting to rely on other nations to make the changes necessary to reduce global greenhouse emissions, while the UK prioritises short-term profitability.

The UK, as one of the world’s most advanced countries, and the first to industrialise, does however have a moral and logistical obligation to lead the way on climate issues.

A transition to renewable energy is inevitable, with or without a specific Net Zero target.

British newspapers must acknowledge the role of climate change in their reporting of extreme weather events, and end their obsession with North Sea oil, if they are going to remain relevant.

Members of Napo (formerly the National Association of Probation Officers), the trade union that represents probation officers, have voted overwhelmingly in favour of strike action over government proposals for an early release scheme across UK prisons.

The indicative ballot saw 90% of voters say they would be in favour of strike action, if the scheme was introduced in October, as currently planned.

Napo haven’t revealed the number of members who took part in the vote, but say that a “significant majority” of those eligible to vote had done so. This suggests strike action could be declared if a statutory ballot was held.

“The ballot wasn’t about membership being too busy” said Napo’s National Chair Ben Cockburn. “It was professionals warning they cannot protect the public properly when there are not enough people to do the work.”

The Delays to Early Release

This ballot is the latest in a series of obstacles which threaten to prevent the introduction of the early release scheme across British prisons.

These measures would see roughly 5,000 offenders released from British prisons in October, as a means of reducing overcrowding in prisons.

Probation officers would then need to supervise the newly released prisoners for the remainder of their sentence, including helping them find housing and employment.

HM Chief Inspector of Probation Martin Jones is head of the statutory board tasked by the Ministry of Justice with independently inspecting probation and youth justice services.

Jones has said that he’s “not fully confident that the probation system will be able to cope with this massive work”. He worries that the early release scheme could lead to “a serious sexual or violent offence or even murder” being committed.

The inspectorate estimates that probation officers are already managing 258,000 newly released prisoners nationally, which is 8% more than two years ago.

The government has also faced criticism from the police force itself.

On Tuesday, 50 serving police chiefs signed a letter calling on Prime Minister Andy Burnham to re-consider certain details of the early release scheme. This included giving greater consideration to how the early release of some prisoners would affect the survivors of their crimes.

“Families across the country are now facing the distress of learning that offenders may be released earlier than they understood when the sentence was passed.” The letter said.

How Did We Get Here?

The early release scheme was a key part of the Sentencing Act, which was passed by former Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government in January this year.

The Act reduced the minimum duration most prisoners must spend in prison from half of their sentence to one third. The minimum prison time for those who committed sexual or violent offences was also reduced from two thirds of their sentence to half.

This was due to come into force in September, but was delayed until October by Burnham to allow for further reviews of the scheme to be held.

This includes taking measures to prevent the release of two people who were jailed in 2020 for their role in the death of PC Andrew Harper in August 2019.

Burnham said on Tuesday that he was “increasingly confident” there was a legal mechanism to prevent the release of Jessie Cole and Albert Bowers from prison.

The logic behind the early release scheme was that it would reduce overcrowding in UK prisons.

A parliamentary report from March this year suggests that 87,342 people were being held in prisons in England and Wales in 2024.

This would be the largest prison population in the country’s history, and roughly 2,000 people lower than the government’s own estimates for England and Wales’ maximum prison capacity.

The parliamentary report forecasted future growth in the prison population, meaning that maximum capacity may have already been reached in some parts of the country.

The Situation Facing Probation Officers

The Ministry of Justice Said that it was “disappointed” by the result of Napo’s indicative ballot.

It acknowledges however that the probation system currently operates with a shortage of staff.

There were 5,554 Full Time Equivalent probation officers working in the UK in March, over 1,500 fewer than the Ministry of Justice’s target of 7,110.

Ben Cockburn has warned of “devastating” consequences “if excessive workload prevent decisions being made properly” by Probation officers.

He also said that a statutory ballot would be Napo’s next step if ministers fail to take “meaningful action on excessive workloads.”

The ministry has however announced that it exceeded its recruitment target for last year, with 1,389 trainee probation officers starting in new roles.

A spokesperson said the ministry is committed to “making sure the Probation Service has the resource it needs to keep dangerous offenders under closer surveillance than ever before.”

Final Thought

The overcrowding of British prisons is a problem that long proceeds either the current or previous Prime Ministers’ times in office.

The early release scheme will likely be an effective short-term solution to that immediate problem, but undeniably risks higher rates of re-offending.

It is therefore imperative that the Ministry of Justice finds a means of preventing a Napo strike as soon as possible.

While individual cases, such as that of those involved in the death of PC Andrew Harper, are deeply emotive and expose issues with the early release scheme, they should not dominate the debate on wider issues.

Early release is not a long-term solution, but may be a necessary short-term step, which can only be achieved with the co-operation of probation officers.

As summer comes to and end and intractable problems start to pile up, we may be seeing the end of Burnham’s honeymoon period as he starts to make the tough decisions.

You can still get a copy of our new edition of ChamberUK. Our parliamentary journal.

You can buy your copy here.