While I write as a lifelong Labour supporter, I am also someone who has spent enough time around politics to recognise the moment for what it is: the sound of a governing party forgetting the timescale on which democracies are supposed to work.

The British public elected Keir Starmer as prime minister in July 2024. Nobody else. That was the offer put to voters, and that was the verdict returned. Parliaments are elected for five years, not sixteen months, and the growing habit of treating the early phase of a government as some sort of rolling audition does a disservice to leaders and the electorate itself. We do not lend out the keys to the country on a provisional basis, subject to review at the first sign of turbulence.

Much of the recent agitation has been dressed up as concern about standards. The cases involving Angela Rayner and Peter Mandelson are cited as evidence that Labour is in trouble, or that it lacks grip. I see them rather differently. What we have witnessed is the operation of higher ethical expectations – expectations that have become unfamiliar after a decade in which standards were ben or sometimes ignored altogether.

Angela Rayner stepped aside after scrutiny concluded that she had fallen short. That is not comfortable for any politician, and it is not painless for a government. But it is what accountability looks like when it is taken seriously. In an era when ethical difficulty was often met with denial or distraction, that difference matters.

The same applies to the handling of senior figures whose presence becomes a distraction to the work of government. The point is not that ministers are saints, or that controversies will never arise. It is that, when they do, standards still bite. Politics has grown so accustomed to moral elasticity that the enforcement of rules can look like self harm. In fact, it is a sign of institutional health.

This needs to be set against a broader truth Westminster is particularly bad at remembering: early unpopularity is not a historical verdict. British political history is littered with leaders who looked fragile or embattled in the early stages of a parliament and were later judged by what they delivered, not by how confidently they filled the space. Harold Wilson governed initially with a thin mandate before securing a stronger one. John Major was never loved, yet he governed a full term. Clement Attlee’s government got on with building institutions that still shape our lives, rather than anxiously checking the mood of the press gallery.

We do not write the history of a government at the sixteen-month mark. We write it at the five-year point, when the accumulated effects of policy and competence can be measured against the promises made. The idea that Labour should now be speculating about leadership change betrays a worrying loss of nerve.

This matters not because Keir Starmer is beyond criticism – no prime minister ever is – but because the alternative is worse. We have just lived through a period in which the Conservative Party treated leadership as a revolving door, churning through prime ministers in the hope that novelty might substitute for coherence. Internal drama consumed energy, confused the public, crowded out delivery, and the electorate noticed.

Labour was elected to offer something different: stability and the slow, often unglamorous work of making the country function better. That project has barely begun. To weaken it now through internal panic would be less an act of renewal than of forgetfulness – a failure to remember what power is for, and how rarely the centre left is entrusted with it.

Away from the Westminster noise, the government’s record so far looks rather different from the caricature sketched by its critics, who would prefer a story of fireworks or instant transformation. What they have, instead, is a story of steadiness returning to systems that had grown used to lurching from one shock to another.

Start with the economy. The most important economic achievement of the past year has been almost invisible: the absence of drama. After a period in which fiscal announcements were capable of unsettling markets within hours, that calm matters. The most recent budget did not thrill anyone. It was not designed to. It asked households and businesses to contribute a little more, redistributed resources towards those under the greatest pressure, and did so without provoking the sort of market convulsions that have become a byword for recent British mismanagement. As the government itself has argued, that kind of boring credibility is a precondition for everything else it wants to do.

Alongside this, the direction of travel on inward investment has been quietly positive. Ministers point to commitments in financial services, advanced manufacturing and, increasingly, artificial intelligence and data infrastructure. None of this will transform living standards overnight, but it suggests that international capital has not lost faith in the UK as a place to do business.

Immigration is a harder and more emotionally charged test. It is also an area where rhetoric has too often floated free of reality. Official figures suggest that net migration has fallen sharply from recent peaks. The government would be unwise to claim victory: pressures remain intense, and public concern has not evaporated. But it is no longer credible to argue that nothing has changed. The numbers tell a more complicated story – one of tightening rules and an attempt to regain control of a system that had plainly drifted.

On small boats, asylum accommodation and removals, the picture is similarly mixed. Ministers talk of determination and long term plans rather than instant fixes, and that is probably wise. But what can reasonably be said is that immigration policy has shifted from symbolic outrage to administrative seriousness. That change deserves time to bed in.

The NHS remains the most emotionally resonant measure of whether government is delivering. Here, too, expectations must be managed carefully. No serious observer would claim that the service has been ‘fixed’. What can be said, on the basis of published data, is that some indicators have stabilised and that there are early signs of improvement in areas such as waiting list management and appointment access. This is slow, painstaking work in a system under immense strain. But after years of apparent decline, even modest progress matters – provided it is sustained.

Taken together, these are hardly the achievements of a government in freefall. Rather, they are the beginnings of a record that will only make sense when viewed as a whole. That is precisely why the obsession with leadership speculation is so damaging. It shifts attention away from delivery and towards theatre, rewarding the loudest voices instead of the most effective ones.

That danger is sharpened by the political context in which Labour now operates. On the right, Reform has demonstrated a knack for communication that should not be underestimated. Its messages are simple and emotionally charged. Panic inside Labour is a gift to such movements, confirming their claim that politics is all chaos and incompetence.

On the left, the Greens present a different kind of challenge. Their appeal is rooted more in idealism, and in a willingness to articulate positions that sit well outside Labour’s centre left project. Labour’s offer is a hybrid of market economics and social obligation: capitalism tempered by a sense of collective responsibility. It is not a protest movement, and it cannot govern as one.

All this places a responsibility on Labour MPs that is easy to describe and harder to practise. Their task now is to make the case – patiently and persistently – for what a centre left government is actually doing in power, not to scan the horizon for leadership alternatives. That panic narrows debate at precisely the moment when clarity is required.

Centre left governments are rare in British politics, and they are rarely comfortable. They attempt to reconcile market economics with a social conscience, efficiency with fairness, growth with restraint. When they falter, the temptation is to look inward. More often, that simply postpones the real work.

Labour was not elected to provide a running commentary on its own anxieties. It was elected to govern. Governments are not auditions. They are responsibilities, measured over years, not weeks. And the grown up response to the pressures of office is patience and the confidence to finish the job that was begun.

Kevin Craig is the CEO and Founder of PLMR. He was a Labour Party candidate at the 2024 General Election. 

The post The rush to panic tells us more about Westminster than Starmer appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Enhanced Geographical Reporting

This year, the report introduces significant improvements in geographical reporting, allowing for the visualisation of composite indices by local authority areas for the first time. These indices categorise areas based on various factors, providing a clearer picture of social mobility across the country.

Key Indicators

The report uses several key indicators to assess social mobility which have been mapped at local authority level:

• Conditions of Childhood: Childhood poverty, parental education, and parental occupation.
• Labour Market Opportunities for Young People: Youth unemployment (ages 16-29) and types of employment opportunities.
• Innovation and Growth: Broadband speed, business spending on research and development, and postgraduate education.
• Promising Prospects: Highest qualification levels, occupational levels (professional and working class), and earnings of 25-44 year olds, all adjusted for socio-economic background.

Conditions of Childhood

The report highlights that children growing up in Kingston upon Thames, Richmond upon Thames, Surrey, Windsor and Maidenhead enjoy the most favourable conditions of childhood. These areas are characterised by higher parental earnings, education levels, and occupational status. Outside London and the home counties, Trafford and East Dunbartonshire also offer favourable conditions.

Conversely, less favourable conditions are prevalent in the North East of England, coastal cities, industrial and former mining areas like Oldham and Stoke-on-Trent, and some inner-city areas in London.

Labour Market Opportunities

From 2014 to 2022, the ‘north-south divide’ in young people’s labour market opportunities became more pronounced. The most favourable opportunities are found in certain London boroughs and Bristol, where young people are more likely to be in professional occupations and less likely to be unemployed. In contrast, areas with unfavourable opportunities include areas in the north and midlands, such as Birmingham, Hartlepool, and Sunderland, as well as rural areas like Northumberland and the Shetland Islands.

Innovation and Growth

London dominates the list of local authority areas with the most favourable environments for innovation and growth. The top six areas are:

• Camden and City of London
• Hammersmith and Fulham
• Kensington and Chelsea
• Richmond upon Thames
• Wandsworth
• Westminster

Favourable environments are also found in Cardiff, Milton Keynes, and Warrington. Rural areas, however, tend to have less favourable environments, including the Isle of Anglesey, Cornwall and Isles of Scilly, Lincolnshire, and Na h-Eileanan Siar (Outer Hebrides). This disparity is partly due to the inclusion of ‘gigabit’ broadband capability as a driver of innovation and growth.

Promising Prospects

Most local authorities score near the average on the index of promising prospects, indicating little difference between them. However, young people in some London boroughs, as well as Surrey, Hertfordshire, and Buckinghamshire, have the most promising prospects, with higher qualifications, earnings, and occupational levels by ages 25 to 44. Outside London and the home counties, Cheshire East and Warwickshire also offer promising prospects.

Less favourable prospects are noted for young people from parts of the North East, including Newcastle upon Tyne, Gateshead, and Durham.

The State of the Nation 2024 report provides a detailed and nuanced understanding of social mobility in the UK, highlighting both progress and areas needing attention. It serves as a crucial tool for policymakers, educators, and community leaders aiming to foster a more equitable society.

Click here to view the map

The post State of the Nation 2024: A deep dive into social mobility in the UK appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

The post ‘We should be able to have discussions about trans rights without fear of pile-ons’ says Kate Osborne MP appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

The post ‘Brexit has played a part’ in school closures due to a lack of pupils, says Florence Eshalomi MP appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

The post Conservative London Mayor hopeful Daniel Korski says he’d build over tube and railways to solve housing crisis appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

The post ‘My constituents have more chance of landing on the moon than buying a house in Slough’ appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Although it is rarely away from the forefront of the government agenda, migration has been a particularly prominent focus in Westminster recently.

The Home Secretary, Suella Braverman has divided opinions with her plans, including the Rwanda scheme and more recently, the installation of a large barge off the Dorset coast to house migrants whilst their asylum applications are processed.

Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick recently made headlines by saying that migrants ‘disrupt social cohesion’, opening more debate about the current Conservative approach to migration, and whether it is the right one to take.

Shadow Immigration Minister Stephen Kinnock says that the attitudes of Braverman and Jenrick are purely causing division, and are actually preventing the job from being done.

‘My message to Braverman? Get the job done rather than causing division and trouble’, he says.

Kinnock also thinks it’s imperative that we restore the returns deal (the Dublin Regulation) that we had with the EU pre-Brexit. But, as Labour also have no plans to return to the EU, is that realistic?

‘We would be starting with a new broom with Keir Starmer’, he said. ‘The Conservatives have botched Brexit and damaged our relations with our European allies. We would fix that’.

The post ‘My message to Braverman? Get the job done rather than causing division and trouble’ appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Earlier this week, Rishi Sunak announced plans to make studying maths mandatory until the age of 18, rather than 16. He says the UK have an ‘anti-maths’ mindset which is damaging to the economy, and that people must ‘stop joking about being bad at maths’

The announcement has already faced criticism, with many saying the promise lacks a coherent plan, including money to recruit and train more maths teachers.

Gillian Keegan, the Education Secretary, admitted we currently do not have enough maths teachers to implement the plan and that it was still not known how many extra would be needed, as this would depend on the recommendation from a new expert advisory group that will help shape the content and decide if a new maths qualification was needed.

Sunak has made clear from the start of his premiership that he wants more people working in business and finance, which has led to questions as to whether this announcement is more political than economic.

Schools Minister Nick Gibb, refutes this, and says ‘it is absolutely not a political decision’, but an instructive one that will help young people in the long run.

The post Schools Minister says making maths mandatory until age 18 ‘is absolutely not a political move’ appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Lord Michael Heseltine was a prominent figure in both Thatcher and Major’s governments. Serving as both a Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State during his time, Heseltine is considered one of the most influential figures in British politics.

Heseltine was said to have clashed with Margaret Thatcher over her euro-scepticism, and his feelings have not changed. He is adamant that Brexit was ‘a disaster’ and the most ‘terrible self inflicted wound’ we could’ve cause upon ourselves.

‘Brexit isn’t our only problem, but it’s a common theme amongst most of the issues we see today’, he says to Alicia Fitzgerald. But, he doesn’t think the fight is over, and believes there is no doubt that we will rejoin EU, sooner than we may think.

Asked about his views on the current government, Lord Heseltine says ‘sanity has been restored’, and sings the praises of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak who he describes as a ‘details man’.

The post It’s impossible to predict when or who, but we will rejoin the EU, sooner than we think, says Lord Heseltine appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

The post In Conversation with Alicia Kearns: The Tiktok ban, Russia/China relations and protecting our data… appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

The post Keeping the over 50s in work is ‘probably better for their health in the long run’ says Nigel Mills appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

The post ‘The government could end up crashing the childcare sector with these new measures. It doesn’t add up’ says Stella Creasy appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Record wait times and staff on strike – the NHS is struggling and the government are under immense and growing pressure to sort it out.

Does it need more money? Does it need more staff? Are too many people falling ill? Or does the whole system just need an entire overhaul?

As part of our Committee Chair Interview Series, Alicia Fitzgerald speaks to Steve Brine MP, Chair of the Health and Social Care Select Committee about the current situation, what is being done, and the role his committee plays.

The post In Conversation: Steve Brine – What do we do about the NHS? appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

The post ‘Brexit and Scottish Independence are a consequence of failure, not a cause’ appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Chairman of the Education Select Committee, Robin Walker, tells us about the government’s priorities in the education system, his thoughts on teacher strikes and the impact his role has on the sector.

The post The Committee Chairs: In Conversation with Robin Walker appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Deputy Leader of the Green Party, Zack Polanski, makes clear that the Greens have their own identity and that they are willing to do what the Labour party are not. Standing in solidarity with people, being on picket lines and being on the side of the workers are all things that Polanski says the Green’s would prioritise.

He also says it’s important to remember that their policies are not just ‘green’, but have impacts on scial justice, the economy and democracy.

Alicia Fitzgerald speaks to Zack about the Green’s current status and vision…

The post The Green Party: ‘We are willing to stand with people. We are different to Labour’ appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Mhairi Black of the SNP says that nothing can change the SNP’s goal of independence. The party will remain fixed on achieving it, and nothing will get in their way.

The Conservatives have made it clear that they are not willing to allow independence, but Black says ‘anything is possible in Westminster’.

The post The SNP’s goal is, and always will be, purely independence, says Mhairi Black appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

During a sitting of the Transport Committee, Ben Bradshaw (Exeter, Labour) asked Steve Montgomery of the RDG whether the figure of £318 million represented the losses from the rail strike days.

The figure was confirmed. This amount is more than what was needed to settle all of the rail disputes, meaning it has cost more to the economy than the pay rises and reforms would’ve.

The post Bradshaw: ‘The money lost from rail strikes is more than what was required to settle all of the disputes’ appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

The post ‘We need to stop looking at things in silos. They all join up’ says Sir Bob Neill on bettering the prison remand system appeared first on Politics.co.uk.