Products are, necessarily, highly regulated and undergo close scrutiny once in use. The future regime will offer a blended approach, maintaining CE recognition alongside the consideration of approvals from other, trusted jurisdictions such as the US, Canada, and Australia.

A key component will also be a bespoke route to the UK market, and one which could help make our country an attractive destination for innovative technologies, such as those currently being considered by the National Commission into the regulation of AI in healthcare. Yet, for any of these pathways to function effectively, we must address the fundamental legal omission at the heart of our domestic regulator.

To make this new era successful, protect the supply of life-saving and life-enhancing technologies to NHS patients, and offer global manufacturers long-term confidence in the UK, it is important that the MHRA now has the necessary powers to approve products in its own name. We cannot rely on a patchwork of international workarounds without giving our sovereign regulator the baseline legal authority to make independent product determinations.

The upcoming Health Bill, announced in the king’s speech, provides the perfect legislative vehicle to fix this problem. The bill will be slim, and the government will be anxious that it passes quickly, such that the abolition of NHS England can be completed by next April. However, the government has not steered away from addressing tricky issues in this legislation, such as those around data sharing to create a unified single patient record.

Whilst those data-sharing clauses may prove contentious during parliamentary scrutiny, using the legislation to give our regulator the powers most people believe it already has, would not. The bill presents an immediate opportunity to secure supply continuity, elevate patient safety, and restore global industry confidence in the UK.

This vital correction could be achieved smoothly through a short, completely uncontroversial amendment. We must seize this moment to build a resilient, modern regulatory framework that protects British patients and accelerates NHS innovation.

The post Sadik Al-Hassan MP: ‘Why the upcoming Health Bill must close the regulatory gap’ appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

But if social care reform becomes yet another argument about who pays, we’ll miss a much bigger problem hiding in plain sight.

The uncomfortable truth is that we’ve built a social care system that spends too much time deciding who doesn’t qualify for support.

Funding matters. There is no question that local authorities need greater resources to meet growing demand. But the solution to a social care system that works for everyone goes beyond funding alone.

At Access Social Care, we provide free legal advice to people trying to access the support they need to live independently and participate fully in their communities. What we see time and again is a system that creates barriers to care through rationing.

That isn’t because social workers or council staff don’t care – far from it. It is because financial pressures have shaped a culture where the priority often becomes managing demand rather than promoting wellbeing.

When budgets are stretched, the incentive is to restrict access, tighten eligibility and focus resources on those in the most acute need. Support that could prevent problems from escalating is delayed or denied because the system is under pressure to concentrate on immediate crises.

The result is a vicious cycle. A disabled person who could remain in work with the right support loses their independence. An older person struggles at home until a preventable fall lands them in hospital. An unpaid carer carries more and more responsibility until they reach breaking point themselves.

These outcomes are bad for individuals, bad for families and, ultimately, bad for public finances. Yet too often they are treated as inevitable.

What makes this particularly troubling is that it runs counter to the principles at the heart of the Care Act. The legislation is built around wellbeing. It recognises that social care should help people maintain dignity, independence, relationships and control over their own lives.

A system built around wellbeing cannot be judged by how effectively it keeps people out. Yet that is often what happens in practice. Cycles of review, reassessment and cuts can become exercises in reducing support rather than understanding what people need to live well.

This is why I welcome Andy Burnham’s intervention. Social care has too often been treated as an issue that can be postponed until another day. It is encouraging to hear a politician with leadership ambitions recognising it as one of the defining challenges of our time.

But real reform requires more than a new funding settlement. We need a deeper cultural shift away from rationing and towards prevention. Away from gatekeeping and towards enabling people to live the lives they want. Away from asking how many people we can keep out of the system and towards asking how many people we can help thrive.

Politicians are right to debate how social care should be funded. They should. But they also need to answer a more fundamental question: what is social care actually for? Because until we stop measuring success by how many people we can exclude, we’ll never build the system people deserve.

The post Andy Burnham is right about social care funding. But that’s not the real problem appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

The data tells the story plainly. Over the last ten years, employment in cities grew by 10.7%. In towns, 5.4%. A stark difference. And people living in places like Stafford have to live with the consequences of that – watching investment land nearby but not reach them, watching young people move away believing opportunity lies somewhere else, and watching their high streets shrink and decline.

The issue is of course, multifaceted. But I believe some small but important changes could be huge engines of growth for our towns, and therefore the economy of our country.

The data shows that certain sectors are more likely to employ people in towns than cities – manufacturing is a strong example, which employs 9% of all employees in towns, more than double the 4% who work in manufacturing in cities. Investing in our manufacturers is therefore a brilliant way to invest in our towns, creating a virtuous cycle of business growth, job creation, and spending in the local economy.

But for too long, our government procurement framework hasn’t been doing enough to reward companies that are already manufacturing in Britain. Public procurement is a hugely powerful tool, with the government spending £434 billion in 2024/25 across the UK. How this money is spent affects our businesses, our workforce, our environment, and our communities. It impacts how we build homes, whether we meet net zero, how healthy our communities are, and whether our local businesses succeed.

These factors form the social value of a contract – the benefits beyond pure delivery of a product or service. While of course price and quality remain key factors, given today’s fragile supply chains and increased global competition, the importance of Social Value is going up.

The historic social value weighting hasn’t been sufficient to tip decisions in the favour of UK manufacturing. Businesses in my constituency have felt this firsthand – and I’ve been pushing the Government to change it.

It is clear from approaches taken in the US, European Union, and elsewhere that there is an appetite for domestic-focused procurement. Germany shows strong preference for domestic suppliers, particularly for critical assets and maintenance reliability, which is crucially important in times of increased global uncertainty.

The European Commission has recently proposed the Industrial Accelerator Act to increase the share of EU products and services in public procurements – a significant change to its current legal framework for investment. The act aims to increase manufacturing to 20% of the EU’s GDP by 2035.

This trend is showing how procurement is becoming a key priority for economic growth and resilience, and things are no different in the UK.

The government’s procurement reform, announced in March 2026, marks the biggest overhaul in a generation and one I believe is an excellent move for the UK. It will mean that bids that deliver real community support, local jobs, skills, and apprenticeships will be rewarded. And it shows this government is committed to buying British, building British and backing British.

The reforms focus on four key sectors: steel, shipbuilding, energy infrastructure, and AI – those that are key to our national security. Importantly, they include a new definition of Social Value to put local communities at the heart of procurement decisions, as well as requiring government departments to publish and annually assess the social value delivery of contracts over £5m.

But I think there is more we can do. We could look at increasing the UK content weighting: where government money is spent it should support domestic production and skilled jobs wherever possible. For the businesses in my constituency, like Perkins making engines, GE Vernova making transformers, or Bostik making adhesives, this would make a real difference.

Outside of procurement reform, the government has recognised that our manufacturers require real support too, announcing £120 million of investment into ceramics manufacturing, £350 million to support the chemicals sector as well as legislation that brings the option to nationalise British Steel. Supporting British manufacturing in more industries, particularly ones like ceramics and steel where energy prices are having a real impact, will help us meet our targets as a country, while supporting British employment in our towns.

The government has made an excellent start, but until businesses in my constituency have a fair shot at their tenders, one that considers their local impact and UK manufacturing properly, I’ll keep pushing. When businesses are already backing Britain, we should absolutely be backing them. And when 48% of people in England and Wales live in towns, we should be creating policy that reflects that – not just reaching for the age-old cities-first playbook we’ve been relying on for so long.

The post Leigh Ingham MP: ‘The government must buy British, build British and back British’ appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

This was unfortunately brought into sharp focus in Billericay last year when an Essex Police raid on an animal rehoming organisation led to the discovery of 41 dead dogs in squalid conditions. While it is important to recognise that this incident is an outlier and not representative of most rehoming organisations, it does highlight the risks that can arise in the absence of oversight.

Despite this, public awareness of the status of animal rehoming organisations is remarkably low. Polling data from Dogs Trust outlined that 79% of the population wrongly believe that these organisations are already subject to licensing and inspection. However, once informed of the current situation, 89% support the introduction of regulation. Whilst significant efforts by animal welfare organisations in recent years have sought to raise awareness, the contrast between widespread misunderstanding and strong public support for reform highlights that much more still needs to be done.

For those that are aware of the situation, there is a clear concern and a demand for change. A petition that was established in the aftermath of the Billericay case, gathered over 109,000 signatures and was subsequently debated in parliament earlier this year. This demonstrated a strong and shared desire across the House with the public to seek action and protect animal welfare.

At the event, we heard compelling arguments for the introduction of a proportionate system of licensing and regulation. This would help ensure that rehoming organisations are supported by clear minimum standards and effective enforcement, ultimately strengthening the excellent work already happening across the sector. Scotland has already provided a framework for this, having in 2021 introduced legislation to regulate both rehoming organisations and rehoming activities under the Licensing of Activities Involving Animals (Scotland) Regulations Act. 

The government’s recent Animal Welfare Strategy is a welcome and ambitious step forward in this space. Its commitment to consult on the regulation of rehoming organisations reflects a clear recognition of the issue and the need to address it. Whilst that ambition is to be commended, it is important that the government provides a clear timeline for the consultation to ensure that a resolution is not delayed as it has been by previous administrations.

With the absence of a clear licensing framework, there remains a clear risk that both bad actors and well-intentioned individuals who become overwhelmed may fall short of the standards that animals deserve. Introducing sensible regulation would help mitigate these risks, provided it was underpinned by appropriate enforcement to safeguard animal welfare and protect prospective adopters. By setting out a clear timetable and working collaboratively with welfare organisations, the government can deliver a system that protects animals, supports reputable rescues and meets the expectations of the public.

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.

The post Danny Beales MP: ‘The case for regulation of animal rehoming organisations’ appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

In signalling its readiness to support Cyprus in discussions with the United Kingdom over the Sovereign Base Areas, the European Union has moved beyond observation into active involvement. That is not a neutral step. It is an attempt by an external bloc to insert itself into a matter of British sovereignty.

We should be clear about the facts. The Sovereign Base Areas at Akrotiri and Dhekelia are not leased, conditional, or subject to periodic review. They are sovereign British territory, established by treaty at independence in 1960, and they remain integral to the United Kingdom’s strategic posture.

They are not a bargaining chip.

Recent commentary from within Cyprus suggests a hardening of position, with the bases increasingly characterised as “colonial remnants” and calls growing for discussions about their future. With the European Union now lending its weight to that direction of travel, this is no longer routine diplomatic noise. It is the early stage of a more coordinated effort to reopen a settled question.

The United Kingdom should approach this with caution. Experience shows how quickly issues framed as “dialogue” can evolve into expectation, and expectation into pressure. The trajectory is familiar: once a position is treated as open to discussion, it becomes vulnerable to incremental concession.

We have seen elements of this dynamic before. The recent history of the Chagos Islands illustrates how long-standing arrangements can come under sustained challenge once their permanence is called into question. Cyprus is not the same case, but the lesson is relevant: ambiguity invites pressure.

There is also a question of impartiality. In 2004, Turkish Cypriots supported the United Nations-backed Annan Plan for reunification, while it was rejected by the Greek Cypriot electorate. Yet Cyprus acceded to the European Union in a manner that entrenched division and left Turkish Cypriots effectively isolated. That episode raised legitimate doubts about the EU’s ability to act as a neutral actor in matters relating to the island.

Those doubts matter now.

The Sovereign Base Areas are not relics of a bygone era. They are a critical asset for the United Kingdom and its allies, supporting operations across the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East at a time of heightened geopolitical instability. Their value is strategic, operational and enduring.

Against that backdrop, the Government should not allow informal or exploratory discussions to evolve into a process that implicitly questions the United Kingdom’s legal position. Nor should it accept the premise that external actors have any standing in determining the future of British territory.

Clarity is essential. The UK’s position should be stated plainly: the Sovereign Base Areas are British; their status is settled; and their future is not open to negotiation with third parties.

Anything less risks ceding control of the process – and, ultimately, the outcome.

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.

The post Britain must draw a firm line on Cyprus sovereignty appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

The response to the climate and nature threats we face has too often amounted to little more than hand-wringing as the ecosystems we all depend on are slowly chipped away at.

Part of the challenge for those of us raising the alarm is how easily these concerns are brushed aside.

Just as climate change was dismissed for years, and still is by some – the political class too readily downplays the long-term consequences of weakening environmental protections or failing to invest in a serious nature recovery plan.

Britain is also rolling back its responsibilities on the world stage. Yet the impacts of climate change and the destruction of vital global ecosystems are real and they are already being felt. Floods, droughts, and other climate-related disasters are not confined to distant parts of the world; they are already affecting lives here in the UK.

The costs of acting are painted as abstract or long into the future when set against pressures more immediately felt in people’s pockets. We have got to be clear about the stakes of ecological collapse – and the urgency of preventing it.

The government recently found £2.2 billion to increase defence spending when pressured to do so by Donald Trump.

If the reasoning for this shift really is our national security – it’s a serious oversight that the same urgency has not been applied to the government’s own intelligence assessments, which conclude that ecosystem collapse is now one of the gravest threats to UK national security.

Developed with the involvement of the joint intelligence committee, the body that oversees MI5 and MI6, this report found that global breakdown of key ecosystems risks geopolitical instability, economic insecurity, conflict, mass displacement and increased inter-state competition for resources, all of which will cause devastating consequences for the UK.

Every critical ecosystem is already on a pathway to collapse, and the impacts are already here, in food prices, flooding, and rising insurance costs hitting British households.

Depressingly, the government delayed the publication of this national security assessment for months. When it finally emerged, it was heavily redacted, raising serious questions about whether the UK is prepared for the consequences it outlines.

It’s more than concerning that this has coincided with a weakening of environmental protections at home – and Ministers retreating from our international obligations too.

International climate finance has been cut from £11.6 billion over the past five years, to just £9 billion in the next, a reduction of close to 40 per cent in real terms. The Biodiverse Landscapes Fund has been slashed from six regions to two. The £500 million Blue Planet Fund is being cut. Multi-year commitments have been reduced to single-year allocations, telling partner countries plainly that the UK cannot be relied upon.

The decision to walk away from the Tropical Forest Forever Facility is further evidence that we are sticking our head in the sand. This landmark mechanism, co-developed with UK involvement and launched at COP30 last November, delivers sustained payments to tropical forest countries for every hectare they protect. The total pledged stands at over $6.7 billion USD. Germany and Norway have committed.

And yet, the UK, which helped design the very architecture of global forest finance, has contributed nothing, citing fiscal constraints.

Tropical forests store enormous amounts of carbon and help regulate global weather patterns – essential for keeping temperatures liveable and weather reliable enough to grow food. When these ecosystems break down, the effects ripple across the world, directly impacting people here in the UK. Cutting funding for their protection is not prudent budgeting; it is a failure to safeguard our security.

When ecosystems collapse, economies fail and the UK pays through emergency aid, security responses, disrupted supply, and food prices that squeeze households and strain public services. The savings made by cutting the Biodiverse Landscapes Fund will be spent many times over on the consequences of its collapse.

These are the dots the government has not connected. Conflict, instability, and the fraying of alliances, are compounded by ecosystem breakdown.

Climate change and biodiversity loss exacerbate resource conflicts, and destabilise fragile states. And yet, currently, we are pouring money into dealing with the consequences while cutting the investment that would address the root causes.

A serious security strategy requires treating nature as critical infrastructure; a resilient network that both protects and powers the UK. Climate action and nature restoration must be embedded into every major decision, not as competing priorities, but as the foundation for all others.

Governing seriously means acting on the evidence. Ministers must reinvest in international climate and nature, treating this security assessment as an urgent call to action.

The vast increases in defence spending demonstrate that significant, targeted funding can be deployed quickly when deemed necessary.

It is high time that nature breakdown and climate change are recognised across Whitehall as a national security issue, with a coordinated, cross-government response to the global threats we face.

After all, no nation is secure when the natural world that sustains it is in freefall.

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.

The post Chris Hinchliff MP: ‘You cannot buy national security while burning the house down’  appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

And yet we fail to notice the unused levers that can help to stimulate growth, in particular the positive potential of the disabled workforce to stimulate growth – provided the right support is in place.

Earlier this month, The Disability Policy Centre released a timely new report on exactly this issue. ‘Access to Work: Employment that works’ makes a compelling case for increased investment in one of the government’s existing flagship work schemes for disabled people.

The report shows Access to Work helps keep up to 50,000 disabled people in work and that it’s highly cost-effective, saving the taxpayer nearly £70 million in government costs which would be seen without it.

For those who don’t know, Access to Work is a publicly funded employment scheme that helps disabled people start or stay in work by offering workplace equipment, money towards travel if public transport is inaccessible, or an interpreter or support worker.

And it’s a scheme I have personal experience of as someone who has directly benefitted from it – so I know what I’m talking about here when I say that Access to Work, when properly funded, can be the difference between working and not working.

The Disability Policy Centre go on to show how favourably Access to Work compares to alternative schemes, too. For example, the average annual Access to Work payment is estimated to be £4,000 and the average grant £7,200 to help keep a disabled person in a job. This is compared with the government spending over £25,000 per ‘job outcome’ created (or sustained employment) on new employment initiatives for disabled people.

Overall, this comes to £1.8 billion and four to six times more per job outcome. What’s more, modelling in the report shows a potential additional cost to the NHS of £910 per person per year if someone with a health condition becomes economically inactive, as well as additional Universal Credit costs of £7,386 per person.

Despite these obvious benefits, reports have started to gather over the past year of unofficial changes to Access to Work guidance in the Department for Work and Pensions, which has seen a sharp increase in cuts to people’s support. And the National Audit Office claims there are more than 32,000 outstanding payments, which of course puts customers in serious financial distress.

This report shows that, far from being bereft of ideas, Whitehall already has a functioning lever to pull to increase disabled employment: the Access to Work scheme. Crucially though, as the report makes clear, this scheme only works if the government provides the investment it needs, instead of gradually eroding resources.

In this era of gloom about growth, I believe we have, in fact, reason for great optimism. We need to be ambitious about disabled people working. We need to be ambitious about creating ‘good work’ that improves health outcomes. We need to be ambitious in ensuring we have a country that works for everyone.

I hope the government reads this report and sees that by investing in Access to Work, we can help disabled people get into and stay in the jobs they love, whilst reinvigorating our national economy.

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.

The post Steve Darling MP: ‘The government has a proven lever for growth in its hands – it’s called Access to Work’ appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

For some, the history of the Labour Party is viewed through a prism of relentless, linear progressivism. In this narrative, the movement has always been a vanguard for social revolution, making the emergence of “Blue Labour” feel like a grit-toothed betrayal – a foreign body injected into a purely progressive bloodstream.

I do not write this piece to trash the social progress that was made under the last Labour government. We should celebrate and continue to defend The Equality Act, equal pay, greater diversity and acceptance in our institutions, including within our politics. We must defend these things particularly as it comes under attack from the populist right, and we should say clearly that the mainstream of this country has no desire to go back to the bad old days where racism, homophobia, misogyny and other social evils were more prevalent.

However, to suggest that a focus on the traditional values is “alien” to Labour values isn’t just a political critique; it is a profound rewriting of history. If you peel back the layers of the movement, you find a plurality of traditions holding our historic coalition together, of which Methodism, trade union protectionism, and a deep-seated desire for social stability are a key part.

The oft-quoted phrase that the Labour Party owes “more to Methodism than Marx” is more than a catchy aphorism. The early pioneers of the movement were often socially conservative figures who viewed the excesses of raw capitalism not just as an economic failure, but as a moral one.

Their primary concern was the protection of the “moral economy.” This included:

• The sanctity of the home: Early unions fought for a “family wage” specifically so that the domestic sphere could be protected from the industrial machine.
• Communal discipline: The movement was rooted in self-improvement, temperance, and a strict ethical code.
• Localism: The focus was on the parish and the branch, not a borderless global utopia.

It is one of the great successes of neoliberalism that we have been convinced that “radical” and “conservative” are polar opposites. We are told we must choose between a left which is socially liberal and or a right wing which is socially conservative. Both of which have accepted the dominance of free market orthodoxy.

However, for the Labour movement, the most potent periods of change occurred when radical economic reform was fuelled by conservative social values. The two are not only compatible; they are often mutually dependent. To rebuild a broken economy, one needs the “social glue” that conservatism provides. A radical socialist program – nationalisation, wealth redistribution, the empowerment of unions – requires a high degree of social trust and solidarity.

The 1945 Attlee government – the gold standard of radical Labour achievement – was culturally traditional. They built the NHS and the welfare state not to dismantle the British way of life, but to fortify it. They were radical in their means because they were conservative in their ends: the health, dignity, and stability of British families.

Modern progressives often view “radicalism” as synonymous with “disruption.” But for a worker, radicalism is the tool used to achieve stability. You nationalise the railways or protect the NHS not to cause a revolution, but to ensure that the foundational things in life remain predictable and secure. In these times of global insecurity, the security of those things we most hold dear as a country and in our communities is a potent political message.

By dismissing the socially conservative streak of the movement as an aberration, we risk alienating the very heartlands we should aspire to represent. When the “Red Wall” crumbled, it wasn’t necessarily because the voters moved; it was because gradually, over decades, the party’s centre of gravity shifted toward a metropolitan liberalism that felt increasingly judgmental of parts of the tradition that founded it.

It’s not just potential Reform voters who could find some appeal in a Labour party talking which places fairness, security and tradition at the core of it’s message. Despite the vehement disrespect for working class communities shown by Zack Polanski when talking about social care workers, we should note that in Gorton and Denton Hannah Spencer secured the support of a coalition of voters who would once have cast their vote for Labour, by focusing on the bread and butter things that most people, regardless of their background, care about. Am I going to be able to afford to put food on the table or heat my home? Can I afford to go on a holiday this year? Is my community divided?

Blue Labour isn’t a Tory-lite infiltration. It is a reminder that work is a vocation, not just a contract, that relationships matter more than abstract rights and that patriotism is a valid expression of solidarity, not always a precursor to prejudice.

To purge the “Blue” from Labour is to lobotomise the party’s own memory. We must stop treating social conservatism as a stain to be scrubbed out and start seeing it for what it is: a foundation stone of the British working-class experience. If Labour wants to win again, it cannot retreat into a comfort zone of any one part of its coalition. It must not lean into the fragmentation of our politics but instead reach back out towards the things that unite us – a radical desire for security, community and a good life that resonates with our historic base.

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.

The post Connor Naismith MP: ‘Why Blue Labour is a key component of True Labour’ appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

The scale of that crisis remains staggering. According to the National Audit Office, more than six million animals were slaughtered. The total cost to the UK economy exceeded £8 billion, with at least £3 billion falling directly on taxpayers. Entire rural economies shut down. Tourism collapsed. Livelihoods were destroyed. Communities were traumatised.

This was not simply an agricultural crisis. It was a national crisis.

Today, we face new and growing threats. African Swine Fever is sweeping across Europe and edging ever closer to our shores. Experts estimate an outbreak here could cost at least £100 million, with the impact falling heavily on pig producing regions like Norfolk. Our farmers know what is at stake. They are watching anxiously and asking whether we are truly prepared.

Biosecurity is national security. It protects our food supply, our rural economy and our national resilience.

One of the greatest risks comes from illegal animal product imports. Too many people still believe that bringing back a little cheese or cured meat from abroad is harmless. It is not. These products can carry devastating diseases. One sandwich in the wrong place can trigger catastrophe.

We need a far more coordinated national effort. The Home Office and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs must work together to strengthen bio border enforcement. I strongly believe we must open a new border control post at Dover. It is unacceptable that vehicles can travel more than 20 miles inland before checks. We must also redouble enforcement at smaller ports and airports, the cracks through which illegal meat can enter.

Investment in science is welcome. The £1.4 billion redevelopment of facilities at Animal and Plant Health Agency Weybridge, led by the Animal and Plant Health Agency, alongside £200 million to upgrade biosecurity infrastructure, will strengthen our diagnostic capability. But science alone is not enough if our borders remain vulnerable.

We also face a crisis in veterinary capacity. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has reported a 68% drop in new EU registrants between 2019 and 2021. This shortage threatens our ability to monitor disease, protect public health and sustain international trade. Changes to the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 must go beyond consumer costs. It must deliver root and branch reform, expand training places and empower vets to protect our national biosecurity.

As the first Labour MP for South Norfolk since 1950, I take seriously my duty to speak up for our farmers. From avian influenza to African Swine Fever, they face constant threats. They need a government that recognises the seriousness of this moment.

The lesson of 2001 is clear. Disease does not respect borders. Complacency carries a cost measured in billions.

We cannot afford to learn that lesson again.

Biosecurity must be placed at the heart of our national security strategy. The safety of our farmers, our food and our country depends on it.

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.

The post Ben Goldsborough MP: ‘Biosecurity must be placed at the heart of our national security strategy’ appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Much of that work is not a quick fix – it is hard yards. We know it will take at least a decade to set things right. But if the foundations of our politics are not able to deliver stability then every bit of progress we make in this parliament is at risk of being swept away. Governing under first past the post is building on sand.

At the last general election, 58% of people who voted ended up with an MP they did not vote for. Unusually, despite the overwhelming parliamentary majority it produced, that election did little to restore public trust in democracy.

With at least five parties in contention across the UK, May’s local elections are set to continue and accelerate the UK’s 60-year trend towards political fragmentation. It is neither sustainable nor democratic for governments to be elected on an ever-diminishing fraction of the popular vote.

Dozens of leading academics have now warned that Westminster’s voting system is headed for chaos. They are not alone. Last month, business leaders came out in favour of electoral reform. They – like we – can see it would create the political stability and consensus required to deliver the long-term investment required to address the housing crisis, the cost of living and rebuilding our trading relationships with Europe.

Labour must not be complacent about the risk of inaction. An outdated electoral system is not just a matter of fairness – it is also a critical vulnerability for interference in British politics and the security of our elections. If extreme parties can win on 30% of the vote, it lowers the bar at which international threats from dark money and disinformation begin to destabilise our democracy.

Cynics might suggest that electoral reform cannot happen without a minor party forcing Labour’s hand – and that electoral reform is just one of many negotiating chips for a coalition deal. That received wisdom is now dangerously outdated. In the 1950s, Labour and the Conservatives won over 90% of the vote. In 1997 that figure was 74%. In 2024? Just 57%.

This trend is reaching a critical tipping point. Five parties are now crammed into a two-horse race across England – six in Scotland and Wales – making elections increasingly random. First past the post is turning British elections into a gamble with the country’s future, recently described by The Economist as “Slot Machine Politics“. Treating our democracy as a bargaining chip in an age of populist anti-democratic movements would be an act of reckless complacency – one that could see British politics follow America’s descent.

There is another way. Labour has a proud tradition of democratic reform – we remain the only party to introduce fair, proportional parliaments across the UK in Wales, Scotland, London and Northern Ireland. This Labour government can still build consensus for an alternative, but it must do so urgently. We need a national commission on electoral reform to examine the electoral system and recommend a modern alternative to first past the post.

We must not bind our party – or the country’s – fate to a broken, unfair democratic system and this clearly failing status quo. The Westminster system is crumbling. Labour must rebuild it – or we will find ourselves under the rubble.

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.

The post Labour must not bind Britain’s fate to the failing electoral system appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

But responding to this upheaval means recognising that today’s national security threats are deeply intertwined with climate change and ecosystem breakdown. As the world moves closer to dangerous tipping points, the risks of food insecurity, conflict and resource scarcity grow, further destabilising the international system and feeding directly into the pressures communities are already experiencing.

These pressures are compounded by president Trump’s withdrawal from key climate agreements, with the fracturing of international cooperation now accelerating the destruction of the ecosystems that sustain us all here in the UK.

As the government’s own national security assessment warned, every global critical ecosystem we depend on is now on a path towards collapse. This would mean failing crops, soaring food bills, economic insecurity, and a much higher risk of pandemics. The threat is not limited to countries: the recent IPBES assessment in Manchester found that every business relies on nature’s services and faces existential risk if it does not actively protect and restore ecosystems.

It’s this impact of ecosystem breakdown on UK security and prosperity that means we must urgently raise our ambition to protect our constituents’ homes, livelihoods and finances. Preparedness must be built into policy from the outset, recognising the climate impacts we will be facing in the future, not just today, and enabling nature-based solutions and restoration to be delivered at a far greater pace and scale, as one of our most powerful tools for protecting people.

This does not replace our ambitious mitigation goals and our clean energy superpower mission; instead it recognises today’s realities and our responsibility to safeguard the public and the economy. As former senior military commander Lieutenant General Richard Nugee recently observed at the national emergency Briefing, we must confront threats as they are, not as we wish them to be.

Increasing our ambition on adaptation faces this threat, but it is also an opportunity to define a clear mission that delivers tangible benefits for communities across the UK and demonstrates the capacity to act decisively. We know that responding to the climate and nature crises has huge economic benefits, but at a time of eroding trust and rising public demand for change, rolling out adaptation measures is among the most powerful ways to improve people’s everyday lives here and now.

From keeping local sports pitches playable and safeguarding commuter routes, to supporting farmers’ livelihoods while easing the food inflation that has strained household budgets. These are the changes that can make a meaningful difference for millions across Britain. They shift the focus away from abstract growth figures and towards the everyday. Adaptation measures may sound technical, but simply put, they will help to lower household costs, protect communities from extreme weather and limit the disruption to people’s lives.

This is also a depolarising approach to climate and nature action. Every one of us here in parliament represents communities already experiencing the effects of extreme weather, and protecting the people we serve must rise above party politics. As polling consistently shows, we are a nature-proud nation and by restoring our natural environment, we not only reduce the risk of climate shocks but also safeguard the places we proudly call home.

​​As chair of the newly formed Climate and Nature Crisis Caucus, I am determined that climate adaptation is firmly on the political agenda. This is not a battle between mitigation or adaptation, it is recognising that they must be done together, as the impacts of extreme weather are happening now and will get worse, whether we like it or not.

The government should show bold leadership and make this case, confronting the opposition head on. The future security and prosperity of the UK is at stake. We must call out those who seek to delay or distract, those who are sowing division for personal gain rather than protecting and bringing our communities together.

We are fortunate that the British public strongly support action on climate and nature, often more than we in parliament realise. We must not take that support for granted. To ensure that climate denialism does not take root in our politics, the benefits of addressing climate change and biodiversity loss must be tangible – and felt quickly. Adaptation is the key: safeguarding communities, restoring trust, and securing our future.

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.

The post Olivia Blake MP: ‘Can climate adaptation strengthen UK national security?’ appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

This is not the behaviour of a serious insurgent movement preparing for government. It is the behaviour of a party more interested in Punch and Judy politics than in the hard work of credibility, coherence and discipline. Exactly the kind of politics voters repeatedly say they are tired of.

For months, Nigel Farage and his closest allies subjected Jenrick to sustained and highly personal attacks. Over asylum hotels. Over immigration numbers. Over his past support for Remain. Over what Reform figures routinely describe as the moral bankruptcy of mainstream Conservatism.

These were not minor disagreements. Farage publicly called Jenrick a “fraud”. Jenrick, for his part, said he wanted to put Reform “out of business”, send Farage “back to retirement”, and described him as not being a “serious politician”.

And now, suddenly, Reform is happy to roll out the turquoise carpet.

Knowing Jenrick was hoping to defect, Reform had two options.

The first was obvious and entirely available. They could have said no.

They could have drawn a clear line and said: we have already taken enough. We are not a refuge for disillusioned Conservative politicians. We are not a halfway house for stalled careers. We are not a retirement home for failed or angry Tories. We are something new, radical and different.

That choice would have had internal coherence. It would have matched Reform’s rhetoric about being an insurgent force. It would have signalled confidence in their own grassroots and a willingness to build something from scratch.

Instead, they chose the opposite.

Reform is not attracting new voices, innovators or unknowns. It is accumulating the political debris of the last Conservative decade. The question it cannot answer is simple: if Reform is a genuine cross-cutting populist movement, why does every major defection come from one side of the political aisle?

Where are the Labour big beasts? Where are the figures who demonstrate this is about ideas rather than convenience?

This takes us to the second option. Reform said yes because it could not resist the theatre.

Taking Jenrick adds nothing to Reform’s claim to be an insurgent party. It actively undermines it. It blurs the brand. It exposes a movement more animated by headlines, pageantry and internal drama than by the disciplines of governing.

You cannot spend months denouncing someone as everything that is wrong with politics and then welcome them aboard without looking unserious. Voters notice that kind of contradiction. They always do.

If Reform wanted to show it was growing up, this was the moment to demonstrate restraint. To prioritise coherence over clicks. To prove it was building a team rather than a cast list for the next political row.

Instead, it chose the easy path.

There is also an uncomfortable truth here for Reform: this episode has strengthened the Conservative Party’s reputation, not weakened it.

Kemi Badenoch discovered that Jenrick was planning a defection and acted immediately. No dithering. No procedural delay. No weeks of quiet indulgence. She removed him from the shadow cabinet and expelled him from the Conservative Parliamentary Party.

She drew a line and enforced it.

That stands in stark contrast to Keir Starmer’s slow and hesitant handling of Peter Mandelson, where weeks passed amid confusion, delay and apparent tolerance. Badenoch showed backbone. She showed authority. And she showed that discipline still matters.

That, in turn, throws Reform’s motivations into sharper relief.

Because while Badenoch is drawing boundaries, Reform is erasing them. Not just with Jenrick, but with a growing cast list that directly contradicts its own rhetoric.

Nadine Dorries, the principal architect of the Online Harms Bill that Reform supporters have spent much energy denouncing. Nadhim Zahawi, the vaccines minister in a movement that has actively courted scepticism about pandemic policy.

These are not minor inconsistencies. They go to the heart of Reform’s credibility.

Farage appears more interested in political showmanship than in consistency or seriousness. What matters is not whether Reform can translate anger into power, but that it continues to reveal what it actually is: a vehicle for noise, not leadership.

On this evidence, Reform is not assembling a governing project. It is assembling a collection of grievances, grudges and contradictions, united less by conviction than by convenience. That may sustain headlines, but it does not withstand scrutiny.

And that is precisely the point.

By acting decisively, Badenoch has drawn a sharp contrast. One party enforces standards, disciplines its ranks and protects its credibility. The other welcomes yesterday’s villains as today’s recruits, with barely a blush.

Reform’s decision to take Jenrick does not weaken the Conservatives. It clarifies the choice. It reinforces the difference between a party prepared to govern and a movement content to posture.

Voters are watching. And increasingly, they can see which is which.

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.

The post Reform isn’t building a party of government. It’s building a retirement home appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

The Tropical Forests Forever Facility, or TFFF, is an innovative finance mechanism that would become one of the largest multilateral investment funds for nature, quadrupling the global finance available for forest protection.

The scheme is designed to halt the destruction of irreplaceable ecosystems like the Amazon, which are the lungs of our planet and the source of countless resources we depend on daily.

In the run-up to COP30, the UK played a leading role in helping Brazil design the framework. Yet, just as prime minister Keir Starmer flew into Belém, the gateway to the Amazon, the UK government unexpectedly announced that the UK would not join other major nations in contributing to it.

The justification given was “fiscal circumstances”. In plain speak, they simply did not want to be seen to be funding projects such as these whilst raising taxes in the budget.

But this is lazy, outdated and backwards thinking. The Treasury must recognise that contributions to mechanisms like the TFFF are investments and not costs. The chancellor has at her disposal ways to classify the TFFF contribution as equity investment or as a financial asset which would not impact her debt or deficit rules.

This is not a grant or a handout. It is a genuine win-win investment fund that, for the first time, creates a value for trees that is not carbon, delivers returns to investors while supporting Indigenous and local communities to keep their forests standing.

This knuckle-dragging thinking at the Treasury is creating a blocker to genuinely innovative and game-changing solutions we urgently need to save tropical forests and protect our planet. It’s also the thinking that falsely pits environmental protection against economic growth, despite the overwhelming evidence of the economic costs of a depleted and degraded natural world.

Before entering Parliament, I spent years working across Africa, South America, Central America and the Caribbean, supporting communities dealing with the impacts of nature loss and climate change. I saw first-hand the ravages of climate change and the devastating cost of inaction. I saw how virgin forest trees currently only have a value when they are on the back of a lorry for timber.

But I also saw the transformation that we can achieve when we work together and inspire leadership. That is why I have joined more than 60 cross-party MPs and peers in urging the Government to take up the opportunity it helped to shape and commit to the TFFF.

I welcome the energy secretary’s answer to my question in the chamber and his reply to the environmental audit committee that the UK’s contribution remains under review. The current situation undermines years of diplomatic work and has disappointed Brazil and tropical forest partners. If the UK wants to sustain its proud record of leadership on climate and nature, this cannot be a decision kicked endlessly down the road.

At a time when voices of climate denial and delay are growing louder at home and abroad, tropical forests like the Amazon can buy us precious time in the rapidly closing window to address climate change and nature loss. The TFFF offers a rare chance of a credible, global plan that finally makes keeping forests standing more valuable than cutting them down or burning them.

The UK helped design it. Now, ministers must listen to the cross-party calls across parliament and help deliver it.

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.

The post Pippa Heylings MP: ‘Is the Treasury sabotaging Britain’s climate leadership?’ appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

I know this from my own personal experience. My daughter Jennie was the victim of a hit and run collision when she was just 31 years old and died nine days later leaving our family in despair, desolate and disconsolate. As Shakespeare puts it: “Grief fills the room of my absent child.” There is little space in that room for anything else.

Grieving for someone you love changes you. It reshapes your outlook, your priorities, and the way you see the world. It can also be profoundly isolating, with Sue Ryder research showing that 88% of people feel alone in their grief. Having a bereavement has certainly changed how I view my role and led me to be more aware of what my constituents may need from me when grieving.

Often, people come to us at their most vulnerable. It could be after the death of a partner, a parent, or even a child. They are not only navigating the emotional turmoil experienced when someone dies, but also the practical challenges that follow, from managing “paperwork” and “life admin” to not knowing where to access bereavement support.

That is why I believe grief literacy, so to speak, is not simply a personal skill, but a political imperative. I believe, as parliamentarians, that if we are to serve our communities to the best of our abilities, we must be equipped to respond to constituents’ grief with empathy and understanding.

This National Grief Awareness Week (2–8 December), national palliative care and bereavement charity, Sue Ryder, is offering MPs and their staff the chance to take part in online bereavement training.

Sue Ryder provides a range of free grief support, from an online bereavement community offering peer-to-peer support, to a self-help platform providing expert advice and tools to help people understand and manage their feelings.

The training itself covers the foundations of grief support, the potential bereavement journey, and how to have sensitive conversations about death and grief. Colleagues and their staff will be better able to recognise the signs of grief in constituents, signpost them to practical and emotional support, and understand the role of parliamentary offices in handling bereavement-related complaints and advocating for policy improvements. It is practical, accessible, and designed to help us better support those who turn to us during these challenging times.

I would urge colleagues across the House and their teams to take up this training and recognise that grief is part of our society, our lives and that our constituents know we will meet them with support and compassion, as well as “policy” when it comes to matters of a bereavement.

Parliament is often a place of opposing debates. But grief pushes that aside. It reminds us of our shared human experience. Data from Sue Ryder also shows that more than 1 in 4 people feel they can’t talk about their grief; MPs can help by normalising conversations about death and grief.

This National Grief Awareness Week, let us commit to building a parliament that understands and acknowledges grief. Let us enlighten ourselves to be better at talking about death and bereavement, so that no one has to grieve alone. I know that only too well.

To sign up for the online training and find out more information, please email campaigns@sueryder.org.

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.

The post Peter Dowd: ‘Together, MPs can build a parliament that understands grief’ appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

In the UK, an estimated 8% of toilets are leaking, wasting up to 400 litres of water per toilet every single day. The problem lies in our increased use of flush valve systems, which are prone to silent, continuous internal leaks – often invisible to the naked eye. These have often replaced syphons – which use hydraulics to create an inherently leak-free design. I saw both of these designs on a recent visit to Thomas Dudley, a manufacturer in my constituency, which has long campaigned for higher water efficiency standards.

For the millions of households with a leaking toilet, this can mean an extra £100 on bills every year. Nationally, we are quite literally flushing hundreds of millions of pounds down the drain. The good news, however, is that the solution to this problem exists; all that is needed is a change in policy.

In 2001 the water regulations were updated to promote valves, which were understood to be more efficient as they reduced the volume of water used per flush. This allowed leak-prone flush valves to be fitted in toilets, instead of syphons. Flush valves rely on a seal which corrodes over time, causing leakage. These leaks are inevitable; the only question is when and not if.

At the time, it was optimistically assumed that consumers would replace valves as and when they failed. However, due to a variety of reasons, including the scale of faults alongside a lack of consumer awareness around how dual flush buttons operate, replacements rarely take place. Even when repairs are enacted (often at the expense of the water company and passed on in bills), this just kicks the can down the road until the next inevitable leak.

The Independent Water Commission forecasts that water bills will rise by 30% by 2030, and that by 2050, England could face a 5 billion litre daily shortfall between supply and demand.

We are already seeing the warning signs. 2025 saw the driest spring in more than 50 years, followed by the warmest summer on record and hosepipe bans across the country. Even now in November, hosepipe restrictions remain in place across much of the South.

This isn’t just an environmental challenge; water shortages represent a significant threat to the government’s housing and infrastructure ambitions.  In April, the Environment Agency objected to plans for the £300m Cambridge Cancer Research Hospital due to concerns over water scarcity, while homes across the country have also been refused planning permission. In fact, according to Public First, a failure to implement water demand management measures in response to water scarcity could cost the economy £25 billion this term.

Water is an increasingly precious resource and we cannot afford to waste it.

On occasion, it is necessary to move back to move forward. Through the changes set in motion in 2001, we have largely replaced an inherently leak-free design with one which will inevitably leak. We need to set this right. By making syphons the default in new builds and retrofits through future updates to the Building Regulations, we could all but eliminate toilet leaks. Alongside this, mandating delay-fill inlet valves – which pause refilling the cistern until the flush is complete – would save around half a litre of water every time we flush. Perhaps most surprisingly, it is currently legal to sell plumbing components that are illegal to install. This must be brought to an end.

With Defra’s consultation on new Water Efficiency Standards now underway, there is a clear opportunity for government to act. These are low-cost, high-impact reforms that would reduce household bills, conserve billions of litres of clean water, and support both our environmental goals and national infrastructure ambitions. It’s time to end the silent scandal of Britain’s leaky loos once and for all.

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.

The post Sonia Kumar MP: ‘How Britain’s leaky loos waste over a billion litres every day’ appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group (APPG) on Spinal Cord Injury, I’ve heard from clinicians, researchers, charities, and – most importantly – people living with SCI. Their message is clear: the system is failing them. What should be a pathway of recovery has become a maze of delay, fragmentation, and inequality.

This is not just a healthcare issue. It is a question of dignity, equality, and national leadership.

Every two hours, someone in the UK sustains a spinal cord injury. Whether through trauma or illness, they are thrust into a system that lacks the infrastructure to support them. Over 105,000 people are living with SCI; that’s 4,700 new injuries annually. With a rapidly ageing population and more non-traumatic causes, demand is increasing while capacity has flatlined. Rehabilitation beds are scarce. Discharge planning is inconsistent. Housing is often inaccessible. Psychological support is patchy at best. And there is still no national registry to track outcomes or measure progress.

One Spinal Injuries Association member put it starkly: “Specialist spinal services are required for rehabilitation and are a non-negotiable part of recovery. We are talking about managing a condition that requires lifelong support from a health service, which if it fails can have devastating consequences.”

Our inquiry found that even basic needs are routinely unmet. Danny Byrne, for example, was left on a hard trolley in A&E for over eleven hours and developed a Grade 4 pressure ulcer. He spent five months on bedrest due to unsuitable care. Another patient, Dave Eastham, described his rehabilitation as “like being reborn again, unable to do the simplest of tasks.” These are not tragic anomalies; they are symptoms of systemic neglect.

The APPG’s report calls for a national spinal cord injury strategy – a framework to replace the current patchwork with coordinated, person-centred care. Our recommendations span five key areas: rehabilitation, workforce, community care, data, and research. The strategy is phased:

• Immediate priorities (1–2 years): stabilise the system and address urgent gaps.
• Medium term (3–5 years): build resilience through workforce development and community integration.
• Long term (5–10 years): embed a joined-up SCI strategy within the NHS 10-year plan.

This is not just about improving outcomes for SCI patients. It is about setting a precedent for how we treat long-term neurological and complex conditions – stroke, brain injury, MS, MND – all of which suffer from similar fragmentation.

We must also confront the absence of national oversight. Without data, we cannot plan. Without standards, we cannot hold systems accountable. Without leadership, we cannot drive change.

Tim Clare, a spinal cord injured patient, described his experience in a general hospital: “Virtually every aspect of my health deteriorated except for the cyst for which I was admitted. This was particularly distressing as the methods of avoiding or treating these other problems have been well established by specialist medical practice and have been part of my daily life for many years.”

These failures are not just clinical – they are political. They reflect a lack of strategic vision and a reluctance to invest in long-term, preventative care. Yet the moral and economic case for reform is overwhelming: coordinated SCI care reduces hospital readmissions, lowers lifetime public sector costs, and allows people to live independent, productive lives.

This report is not an end – it is a beginning. A blueprint for reform. A challenge to government to act.

We now need ministers to respond and commit to a National Spinal Cord Injury Strategy that restores the UK’s place as a global leader in rehabilitation, research, and inclusion. Anything less is a betrayal of the values we claim to uphold.

Let us move from platitudes to policy, from crisis management to coordinated care. Let us honour our legacy not with words, but with action, and build a system worthy of the people it serves.

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.

The post Andy McDonald MP: ‘The system is failing spinal cord injury patients – we need a national strategy now’ appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

So when the UK announced a 15% reduction of its pledge – from £1bn in 2022 to £850m – my reaction was one of disappointment. Coming on top of a 30% cut in the previous funding round, it means the UK’s contribution has fallen from around £1.46 billion to £850 million in just six years. This isn’t just a line in a budget – it has real consequences for people’s lives and health. A cut of this scale could mean 220,000 fewer lives saved, 270,000 fewer people receiving HIV treatment, 240,000 fewer people accessing tuberculosis care, and 20 million fewer people protected from malaria. Behind each of these numbers are mothers, children and communities whose futures are put at risk by a step back in funding.

But this cut also undermines the health systems the Global Fund has helped strengthen. Systems that keep us all safe – from London to Lahore, from Newcastle to Nairobi. Trained health workers, functioning laboratories and reliable supply chains aren’t just vital for HIV, TB and malaria; they are the backbone of pandemic preparedness and global health security. When these systems are weakened anywhere, everyone is at greater risk of new outbreaks, emerging infections and the spread of disease across borders.

The UK has a particular responsibility in this regard. As a founding member and long-time partner of the Global Fund, and co-host of this year’s replenishment summit alongside South Africa, we are uniquely positioned to lead by example. This responsibility demands a strong financial pledge: stepping back now, even slightly, sends the wrong signal at a moment when decisive leadership is needed to galvanise other donors and protect the progress we have fought so hard to achieve.

So it’s hard not to see this announcement as a missed opportunity. A missed opportunity to save more lives from AIDS, TB and malaria. A missed opportunity to strengthen the very health systems that deliver care and protect us against future pandemics. And a missed opportunity to demonstrate strong leadership at a time when such leadership is strikingly absent.

However, there are positives to take. Whilst it is a cut of 15%, this £850 million pledge comes amid a 40% cut to the UK aid budget, which has forced officials into incredibly difficult decisions. The government repeatedly recognises that the Global Fund is a best buy in development, and so prioritising funding in this context is a welcome step. The evidence is clear – this money will be well spent.

Since 2002, the Global Fund partnership has saved 70 million lives and reduced the combined death rate from AIDS, TB and malaria by 63%. Last year alone, 25.6 million people were on HIV treatment, 7.4 million received care for tuberculosis and 162 million insecticide-treated mosquito nets were distributed. These are tangible, lifesaving results, showing that even a reduced pledge can deliver enormous impact.

There is still a clear opportunity. The biggest leaps in progress against AIDS, TB and malaria have come through collective action – through multilateral partnerships like the Global Fund. The necessity of these partnerships is obvious: COVID-19 showed us that outbreaks anywhere can affect people everywhere. The phrase ‘none of us are safe until we are all safe’ perfectly captures our interconnectedness and mutual responsibility when it comes to global public health.

With the Global Fund aiming to raise US$18 billion for its next three-year cycle, there is still a chance to save 23 million additional lives and prevent 400 million new cases of HIV, TB, and malaria. As attention turns to the replenishment summit in Johannesburg on 21 November, prime minister Keir Starmer’s attendance will send a clear signal of the UK’s continued commitment and help spur other donors to step up. The UK, as co-host of this year’s replenishment, has a particular responsibility to ensure its reduced pledge does not set a precedent for other donors, and to identify ways to supplement it.

By doing so, it would reinforce the largest multilateral investment in health systems, reaching both governments and communities where care is delivered and outbreaks are first detected. Strong funding now will not only protect lives today, but also ensure that health systems remain resilient, communities are safer, and the UK continues to play a leading role in advancing global health.

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.

The post Beccy Cooper MP: ‘The UK’s Global Fund pledge is a missed opportunity’ appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Greater Anglia has led the national punctuality league every month for two years, with the industry’s key on-time metric running at about 94% of services (against an industry average of c.87%). Its private owner has delivered a complete replacement of the fleet: new, energy-efficient trains with level boarding, Wi-Fi, power points and greater capacity across the network, alongside station upgrades and targeted journey-time reductions (for example, 6–7 minutes off the Norwich–London timetable). It amounts to over £1.5 billion of private investment benefiting passengers and the region. And unlike most of the network, Greater Anglia has been sending a premium back to the Treasury, well over £100 million in 2024.

So why start here? If nationalisation is really about improving services, the obvious place to begin is with poor performers. Take CrossCountry. Last year, the former transport secretary wrote to the operator raising “serious concerns” about cancellations, approving (reluctantly) a temporary timetable reduction and placing the company on a remedial plan, while making clear further action could follow if performance did not improve. Ministers have acknowledged they can terminate underperforming contracts early where the terms are breached, rather than waiting for expiry.  But they haven’t. Instead of tackling a chronic underperformer, the government’s programme brings stable, high-performing services into public ownership first. That is the wrong way round.

Ministers also argue that nationalisation is about affordability. The public agrees affordability matters, but they are sceptical that a state takeover will deliver it. A recent YouGov survey found that while two-thirds back nationalisation in principle, support collapses to just 6% if fares keep rising. Unless and until ministers can show how fares will be reduced without starving the railway of investment, the promise of cheaper tickets is not a plan, it’s a hostage to fortune.

There is a cautionary tale north of the border. ScotRail was taken into public ownership in 2022 amid great fanfare. Since then, the numbers have gone the wrong way – higher subsidy and costs, more staff, performance pressure and tens of thousands of cancellations. In fact, it has been reported that the cost of the railway services is nearly £600 million more in the first two years of nationalisation than when it was operating in private hands. If Greater Anglia starts to go in a similar direction, Labour will find itself in a high-risk situation where the entire policy approach is undermined.

None of this is to deny the merits of rail reform. Bringing track and train closer together through Great British Railways is overdue and a Conservative idea originally born out of the Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail. But doing piecemeal nationalisation before the GBR model is developed, before a clear performance and incentives framework is agreed, and while the government is still marshalling the resources for a vast organisational change, is risky and ideological rather than practical. It is a policy that is there purely from weakness to please Labour’s trade union paymasters. It absorbs management bandwidth on lines that are working, precisely when the state should be laser-focused on turning around those that aren’t.

You don’t need nationalisation to bring track and train together. But if the government is set on the political experiment, it should at least do it in a rational way that minimises damage. A better approach is available. First, prioritise taking on failing operators, starting with the worst performers and setting out transparent, passenger-facing recovery plans. Second, let proven, high-performing concessions run until GBR is ready. That keeps standards high, protects the taxpayer, and avoids a destabilising demobilisation of experienced teams. Third, be honest on the cost of nationalisation: if ministers do not intend to reduce fares now or in the future, they should articulate that clearly to passengers, and they should also come clean to the taxpayers.  They will have to spend a lot more on subsidising rail to make up for lost private sector investment. From now on, new trains for Greater Anglia won’t be funded by private investment – it will be taxpayers.

The Greater Anglia experience shows what focused management, private capital and clear targets can achieve. It has delivered new trains, faster journeys, better accessibility and the best punctuality in Britain, while paying a premium back to taxpayers. Nationalising it does nothing to help passengers enduring poor service elsewhere. If the government is serious about improvement rather than satisfying rail union demands, it should start where the problems are, not where the headlines are.

After all, think of a nationalised business or organisation that has a reputation for good management. Me neither.

The post Jerome Mayhew MP: ‘Nationalising our best railway early is the wrong priority’ appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Today, we stand at the edge of a new industrial revolution. Artificial Intelligence is reshaping economies, while defence, energy, and aerospace have become national priorities. The government’s industrial strategy rightly identified these as “frontier industries” – the technologies that will underpin our industrial and economic strength for decades to come.

But a genuine industrial strategy should not just be about backing our best companies. It must also be about building the ecosystem that turns world-class innovation into global businesses of commercial clout and impact. Few technologies embody this challenge better than nuclear fusion – the “holy grail” of energy, offering not just limitless, clean power, but also a foundation for technological and geopolitical leadership.

As minister for fusion in the last Conservative government, I’m proud that we recognised this potential: launching the STEP programme to build a prototype Magnetic Confinement Fusion (MCF) plant by 2040, and establishing UK Industrial Fusion Solutions (UKIFS) to drive the West Burton site as the UK’s sovereign fusion business park and investment hub.

I’m also proud that as minister of state for science at BEIS I oversaw the UK’s development as the first nation to establish a legal framework for fusion energy. Having done all this in a deliberately non-partisan way to signal long-term all-party support, I was delighted with the new government’s £2.5 billion commitment to fusion in the recent spending review.

However, we are in a global race. To avoid losing our advantage, we need to move at pace with agility, but I’m concerned that we are not moving quickly enough to consolidate our position as a global fusion powerhouse. We can’t afford to let UKIFS become bogged down, overly focused on being the delivery vehicle for STEP at traditional Whitehall procurement pace rather than as the moonshot I intended.

Britain is one of five nations with fusion capability – the others being the USA, China, Germany and Japan – however, we are the only one betting everything on MCF. That is a strategic risk. If we stay wedded to a single fusion technology approach, we risk losing out in the global race for sovereign fusion industrial leadership and the all-important momentum in a race that is becoming increasingly key to defining global power in the 21^st century.

To secure our sovereign strength in science and technology, we must also back inertial fusion energy (IFE) – a field where Britain already leads the world.

In September, First Light Fusion (FLF), the UK’s leading IFE company, unveiled its new FLARE approach – a major leap for Britain’s fusion ambitions. Today, they launched their  Future for Fusion Roadmap, which utilises FLARE to provide a pathway for commercial fusion within a decade.

FLF’s work builds directly on Britain’s strengths in pulsed power, lasers, sensors, computation and materials science. This is not just about clean energy; it’s about the sovereign technologies that will define the next era of global advantage. IFE could power data infrastructure, remote military bases and space systems – all critical to our security and competitiveness.

Britain’s scientific strength has always given us a geopolitical soft power edge. In the changing geopolitical landscape of 2025, the ability to deliver fusion energy is a massive industrial and geopolitical opportunity. Fusion is the next great test of that advantage. The countries that master it will not only lead global energy markets but also shape the technologies they power. We remain world-class in research but risk losing the commercial race. If we fall behind, we risk ceding ground to authoritarian rivals such as China, allowing them to set global norms in AI, data and defence. But if we act decisively, we can once again make British innovation the engine of global progress.

As a longstanding advocate of industrial strategy, I support the new government’s industrial strategy as a clear commitment to this vision.  We won’t be a global fusion hub playing one club golf.  The UK Fusion Strategy cannot be simply sole funding for STEP. We need to be using STEP to anchor a broader fusion cluster to include both IFE and MCF, expanding West Burton into a multidisciplinary cluster and giving companies like First Light the regulatory and financial environment they need to grow.

Fusion is no longer a dream – it’s a defining strategic lever. If we don’t seize the opportunity of the industrial strategy to change pace and ambition, we risk losing decades of industrial advantage. If we act now, Britain can lead a new wave of innovation – strengthening our defences, powering our economy, and securing a new era of national prosperity.

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.

The post George Freeman: ‘Harnessing fusion is the ultimate test for Labour’s industrial strategy’ appeared first on Politics.co.uk.