Rt Hon Andrew Stephenson CBE

Former Minister of State for Health, Department of Health and Social Care
Chair, University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust
Chair, Curia, Health, Care, and Life Sciences Research Group

Writing on the forthcoming NHS strikes, resident doctors are set to strike again in June. Unless government and unions rebuild trust, industrial action risks becoming a recurring feature of NHS life rather than an exceptional moment of dispute.

Resident doctors will strike again from 15 to 19 June. As the Department of Health and Care Minister responsible for workforce between 2023 and 2024, I spent a great deal of time trying to resolve the industrial disputes that have become all too regular within the NHS.

Unless something radical happens, the question is less about whether further strikes will happen and more about how sustained and disruptive they are likely to be. For NHS leaders, the situation demands a clear-eyed assessment rather than political positioning.

A Dispute That Has Become More Entrenched

Recent history provides important context. Industrial disputes in the NHS are not new, but the scale and persistence of the current wave are unusual. The junior doctors’ contract dispute in 2015 and 2016 was, at the time, a significant escalation, marking the first full walkout in a generation. What has happened since 2022 is different.

Strike action has spread across multiple staff groups and, crucially, has been repeated over long periods rather than resolved quickly. By early 2026, resident doctors in England had already taken part in numerous rounds of industrial action since 2023, with fresh mandates extending that action further.

At the centre of the dispute is pay, but it would be a mistake to treat this as a short-term disagreement over percentages. The British Medical Association (BMA) has consistently argued that doctors’ pay has fallen substantially in real terms since 2008, often citing figures in the range of 20 to 25 per cent.

The Government, on the other hand, points to recent pay awards that it says represent significant increases and argues that meeting union demands in full would place an unsustainable burden on public finances.

These are not positions that can easily be reconciled through a compromise at the margins. They reflect fundamentally different views about what is fair and what is affordable.

Trust Between Ministers and Unions Has Eroded

This gap has fed into a more strained relationship between medical unions and ministers. The tone on both sides has hardened. Government figures have increasingly framed union demands as unrealistic, while union leaders have questioned the credibility of government offers and the independence of the pay review process.

That matters because the NHS has traditionally relied on a degree of partnership working, even during disputes. Once that trust erodes, negotiations become more about leverage than resolution.

There has also been a shift within the unions themselves. In the case of the BMA, internal changes over recent years have led to a more assertive approach, backed by members who have repeatedly voted in favour of continued strike action.

That suggests this is not simply leadership driven militancy, but a broader reflection of workforce sentiment. At the same time, there are signs of disagreement within the profession about how effective or sustainable ongoing strikes are, particularly as disruption accumulates.

The NHS Is Managing Strikes, But at a Cost

From the perspective of NHS organisations, one notable development is that the system has become more adept at managing strike periods. During recent rounds of industrial action, a large proportion of planned care has still gone ahead, albeit with considerable effort, cost and reliance on goodwill from non-striking staff.

This resilience is important, but it creates a complicated dynamic. If strikes do not lead to visible system failure, they may exert less immediate pressure on government. Yet the cumulative financial and operational strain is significant and cannot continue indefinitely without consequences for service quality and staff morale.

Public opinion is another factor that cannot be ignored. Early in the current wave of strikes, there was relatively strong public sympathy for NHS staff. Over time, that support appears to have become more mixed, particularly as waiting lists remain high and patients experience repeated disruption.

A prolonged dispute risks eroding that support further, which in turn may influence the strategies of both unions and ministers.

Further Industrial Action Remains Likely

So, what does this mean for the likelihood of further industrial action after the latest dates announced today? On balance, it remains high. The core drivers of the dispute are still in place: a long running disagreement over pay, a breakdown in trust between key actors, and a workforce that has shown it is willing to continue taking action.

There is no clear sign yet of a settlement that addresses these issues in a way that both sides can accept.

That said, the pattern of action may evolve. Rather than continuous escalation, it is more likely that we will see intermittent and targeted strikes, designed to maintain pressure while limiting the risk of losing public support.

The new Secretary of State may continue to pursue incremental pay offers, potentially linked to wider workforce reforms, while unions may adjust their tactics in response to both internal pressures and public sentiment.

Ministers Must Address the Underlying Workforce Challenge

For NHS leaders, the immediate priority remains maintaining patient care and supporting staff through a difficult period. But there is also a broader point. The current cycle of industrial action reflects deeper structural issues in how the NHS manages workforce planning, pay progression and industrial relations.

Without addressing those underlying problems, there is a real risk that disputes of this kind become the norm rather than the exception.

Christmas messages are meant to sit above day-to-day politics, but they rarely sit outside it. In tone, emphasis and what is left unsaid, they offer a useful indicator of how party leaders want to be seen at the close of the year and what mood they believe the country is in.

This year’s messages from the main party leaders, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal Democrat leader point to three distinct political positions as the UK heads into the New Year.

Sir Keir Starmer – reassurance, service, and national responsibility

The Prime Minister’s Christmas message is consciously traditional in tone. Sir Keir Starmer leans heavily on the language of family, community, and service, placing particular emphasis on NHS staff, emergency workers, volunteers, and the Armed Forces.

His focus on Christian values, goodwill and social responsibility reflects a desire to speak to the country as a whole rather than to any particular constituency. There is no policy detail, but there is a clear moral framing – that government’s role is to support those struggling with the cost of living, while individuals also look out for one another.

Politically, the message reinforces a leadership style built around public service. Starmer positions himself as a custodian of national life rather than a campaigner, signalling continuity and calm as the defining traits of his premiership. A tough position to communicate with significant difficulties in the polls.

Kemi Badenoch – reflection, faith, and personal resilience

Kemi Badenoch’s message is more personal in tone, rooted in family life, faith and reflection on the year gone by. She speaks candidly about parenthood, the speed of change, and the importance of remembering the Christian meaning of Christmas alongside its celebrations.

She also explicitly reflects on her first year as Leader of the Opposition, describing it as both challenging and rewarding. This combination of personal narrative and political reflection underlines where the Conservatives currently sit – rebuilding, regrouping, and seeking to re-establish a sense of purpose.

Rather than attacking the government, Badenoch focuses on gratitude, resilience and looking ahead. It is a message aimed as much at her own party as the country, signalling renewal and determination. As the Party regroups from their worst defeat, there is definite optimism in this Christmas message.

Sir Ed Davey – symbolism, solidarity, and shared values

Sir Ed Davey’s Christmas message takes a more distinctive approach, built around the symbolism of the Trafalgar Square Christmas tree and the criticism on social media. By recounting its origins as a gift from Norway after the Second World War, Davey connects Christmas to themes of international solidarity, freedom and standing together in difficult times.

The message aligns closely with Liberal Democrat positioning – outward looking, values driven and quietly internationalist. Davey explicitly links past sacrifice to present challenges, including support for Ukraine, while framing Christmas as a moment of generosity and hope.

It is a softer, reflective intervention, reinforcing the party’s role as a moral and civic voice – potentially one that may hold the keys to power in future years to come.

Notable absences – Greens and Reform

Two figures are notably absent so far. The Green Party leader’s Christmas message has not yet been released and is expected to be timed alongside The King’s Christmas Message, a choice that may be designed to maximise visibility but risks comparison…

Equally, Nigel Farage has not yet released a Christmas message for Reform. How does the party intend to frame itself during a season traditionally associated with unity and goodwill…

Final thought – three parties, three states of mind

Taken together, these messages offer a revealing snapshot of British politics as the year closes.

Labour speaks from government, prioritising reassurance, stability, and national service. The Conservatives speak from opposition, focused on rebuilding confidence, identity, and momentum. The Liberal Democrats continue to position themselves as the conscience of the political landscape, emphasising values and internationalism.

In their ‘subtle’ way, each leader uses Christmas to reinforce how they want to be perceived in the year ahead – as a steady hand, a renewed challenger, or a principled voice.

As Britain enters the New Year, and elections on the horizon across the four nations, all parties will take this time to rest, reflect, and recuperate – expect some interesting ‘debate’ over Christmas dinners across the country…

Merry Christmas and see you in the New Year!

Henry Snowdon

Polling Correspondent, Politics UK

Labour is now projected to win just 101 seats – and the data shows their vote collapsing in three completely different directions at once. Read Politics UK’s full polling analysis.

Voting Intention Seat Projection

Since the May local elections, successive polls have told a similar story. Reform is on course to win the most seats and is close to an outright majority. This poll is no exception, projecting 323 seats for Reform. More striking, though, is Labour’s steady slide. The forecast puts Labour at record lows – 18.5 per cent of the vote and 101 seats. To explore how this erosion is occurring, this article examines three constituencies that show Labour losing support on multiple fronts.

Leeds Central and Headingley

2024 Result Current Projection

The Green Party has surged in the polls since Zack Polanski became leader around two months ago, reaching a record 13.8 per cent in my current forecast. Leeds Central and Headingley exemplifies the kind of seat the Greens could capture at the next General Election. They already have a local base – they took 23.5 per cent at the General Election and won a key city council seat (Headingley and Hyde Park) in the 2024 municipal elections – and the demographics are favourable. Recent polling shows the Greens leading among 18–24-year-olds, and Leeds Central and Headingley has the youngest electorate in the country, with 41 per cent in that age group.

Reform won only 7.6 per cent here in 2024, so fears about splitting the vote and “letting Reform in” are far less likely to deter disillusioned progressives from voting Green. In short, young, highly educated urban cores, like Leeds Central and Headingley, are where the Green upswing – and Labour’s votes decline – and are most likely to produce tangible gains.

Seats With Similar Demographic Profiles to Watch Out For

Manchester Gorton, (Greens projected to win with 31.9 per cent of the vote)

Sheffield Central (Greens projected to win with 36.6 per cent of the vote)

Liverpool Riverside (Greens projected to come second with 26.2 per cent of the vote)

Doncaster North

2024 Result Current Projection

Reform is set to increase its support in almost every constituency as its vote share more than doubles. However, the rise will not be even, and Doncaster North is a useful case study of where a very large swing is likely – and why. First, the surge there is not merely projected – it has already begun. In the May council elections, Reform topped the poll in every ward within the constituency.

Nationally, those local elections and subsequent polling point to a clear pattern: Reform is over-performing in areas that are whiter, are more economically deprived, and have lower levels of qualification. Doncaster North fits that profile – it is the 75th most deprived constituency in England, is 97 per cent white, and has the 33rd lowest qualification attainment in Great Britain – making it a textbook example of Reform’s emerging heartland.

There is also symbolism in a swing of this magnitude. The seat is held by one of Labour’s most high-profile MPs, former leader Ed Miliband. His potential defeat would speak to Labour’s fraying relationship with parts of its traditional base, as soft-left progressive politics has, for many working-class voters, lost its appeal. It would also mark a genuine sea change. Doncaster North has only ever elected Labour MPs – it even resisted the Conservative surge in 2019. A heavy loss here would suggest Labour is in deep trouble.

Seats With Similar Demographic Polling Profiles to Watch Out For

Kingston upon Hull East (Reform projected to win with 49.3 per cent of the vote) 

Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Reform projected to win with 47.9 per cent of the vote)

Barnsley South (Reform projected to win with 52.5 per cent of the vote)

Similar Seats 

Hamilton and Clyde Valley – Snp 27.1% (current projection) 27.4% (2024 election)

2024 Result Current Projection

The Scottish National Party (SNP) is currently projected to win 45 seats, up from just 9 at last year’s General Election. That might suggest a major resurgence; however, the data says otherwise. The SNP is polling at 31.7 per cent – only 1.7 percentage points higher than at the General Election – and its support has mostly hovered within the margin of error over the past year. The real driver of change is Labour’s national collapse. Labour is projected at 15.3 per cent – down from 35.3 per cent. While a slice of that vote has moved to the SNP, a larger share has shifted to Reform.

A late-September Norstat poll found that 56 per cent of Scottish Labour voters intending to switch now plan to back Reform, while only 16 per cent are moving to the SNP. As a result – and after attracting an additional 4 to 8 per cent of 2024 SNP voters – Reform is polling at 21.1 per cent across Scotland and is competitive in many seats. Even so, because the SNP retains a poll lead and a relatively even spread of support, it is – so far – the main beneficiary of Labour’s collapse.

Hamilton and Clyde Valley best illustrates this pattern. It is the SNP’s lowest-share projected gain, with the party slipping by 0.3 percentage points yet still taking the seat due to Labour’s vote falling from 49.9 per cent to 26.7 per cent. Reform is also strong here, at a projected 22.5 per cent – putting the seat firmly in play. Variations of this story appear across constituencies Labour won in 2024 – a microcosm of Scotland’s current political landscape.

Seats With Similar Demographic Profiles to Watch Out For:

Ayr, Carrick, and Cumnock (SNP projected to win with 27.7 per cent of the vote)

Bathgate and Linlithgow (SNP projected to win with 28.8 per cent of the vote)

Central Ayrshire (SNP projected to win with 28.9 per cent of the vote)

Conclusion 

Labour is currently facing political losses in many divergent directions. In seats like Doncaster North, where their coalition relied on the white working class, they are losing out to Reform. In seats like Leeds Central and Headingley, where their coalition relied on young progressives, they are losing out to the Greens. And in Scotland, where their coalition relied on anti-SNP, and anti-Tory tactical voting, they are losing out to the SNP. The collapse of the Labour coalition has been quick and dramatic. As they are currently projected to win 101 seats, one begins to wonder how much lower they can go. 

This article was published in the latest edition of Chamber UK’s journal. To buy your copy or download an online version, visit: www.chamberuk.com/publications.

The obesity medicines, science, data, and digital capacity now exist to treat obesity as the chronic, relapsing condition it is – and to prevent millions of avoidable cases of heart disease, kidney disease, diabetes, and cancer. The task ahead is to align political will, evidence, and implementation so that this becomes the nation’s ‘Herceptin moment’ for obesity.

Three Big Shifts Shaping the UK Approach

The first shift is from sickness to prevention. Tackling obesity must be understood as part of the wider cardiovascular, renal, and metabolic (CVRM) prevention agenda – addressing obesity as the root cause of multimorbidity and building a prevention-led NHS that strengthens workforce participation and economic productivity.

The second is from analogue to digital. Evidence shows that the greatest and most sustainable weight loss occurs when medicines are paired with continuous digital behavioural support. The UK already has National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)-accredited digital providers, such as Reset Health and Roczen, delivering safe, scalable care with clinical oversight. As Roczen’s Chief Medical Officer, Professor Barbara McGowan, recently noted, “Integrated digital-first delivery, with medical oversight and behavioural support, improves patient access and outcomes and reduces the burden on local NHS services.”

The third shift is from cost containment to economic growth. Access to proven obesity treatments and digital support not only saves lives but also saves public money by reducing long-term sickness, NHS resource utilisation, and welfare dependency. As the new Health Innovation Minister, Dr Zubir Ahmed, has argued, “Harnessing life sciences innovation in areas like obesity care is central to both prevention and prosperity.”

“The UK can lead the world in obesity innovation – turning once-in-a-generation scientific breakthroughs into lasting health and prosperity for all” ~ Vice President of UK & North Europe IQVIA Angela McFarlane.

Harnessing the Power of UK Health Data

The UK’s ability to deliver on these shifts depends on its unmatched health data infrastructure. Scotland’s unique Community Health Index (CHI) number provides lifelong, linkable records, which, when combined with IQVIA’s leadership in delivering health data-enabled real-world studies, underpinned by digital patient support platforms, create one of the richest anonymised datasets in Europe.

This integrated approach will enable policymakers to prioritise which communities stand to gain most from treatment, monitor real-world outcomes, and adapt commissioning based on live evidence rather than retrospective analysis. As global demand for real-world data grows, this capability also strengthens the UK’s position as a preferred destination for research and investment.

Scotland Leading the Way: Scotland Cardiometabolic Impact Study (SCoMIS)

The announcement of the landmark Scotland CardioMetabolic Impact Study (SCoMIS) marks a major step forward in the UK’s efforts to tackle obesity through innovation and inclusion. SCoMIS is a multi-million-pound study funded by the UK Government. IQVIA will deliver the landmark SCoMIS real world evidence study in partnership with the Universities of Glasgow, Dundee and Edinburgh, and global healthcare company Novo Nordisk.  SCoMIS will invite 3,000–5,000 people living with obesity and related comorbidities from across the most economically deprived communities in Scotland.

SCoMIS will shape how an incretin-based weight-loss medicine (GLP-1s) can be safely, effectively, and equitably delivered in everyday NHS settings, such as GP surgeries and community pharmacies. The study will explore not only clinical outcomes, but critically, the impact on health inequalities, NHS healthcare resource usage and capacity and economic productivity. 

Professor Jason Gill, Professor of CardioMetabolic Health at the University of Glasgow and lead of the SCoMIS consortium, describes it as “a landmark real-world study evaluating a new model of obesity care, providing incretin treatment via primary and community care to Scottish adults living with obesity, with a focus on those in the most economically deprived communities”.

The project exemplifies the UK Government’s Life Sciences Sector Plan, combining scientific excellence, partnership, and equity. As UK Science Minister Lord Vallance noted, “Scotland is home to a vibrant life sciences community, fuelled by strong public and private sector partnerships and supported by top-tier universities and the NHS. New ways of tackling obesity offer the chance to give people their health and wellbeing back – in some cases, offering a route back to the dignity of work.”

DiCE-REALM Study – Digital Support at Scale

In addition to supporting research for improved access to innovative GLP1 therapy for NHS patients, IQVIA has created the DiCE-REALM study (Digital and Clinical Excellence Real-World Evidence for Advancing Lifestyle and Medication) in partnership with the DiCE network.  

The DiCE network represents the reputable digital online health providers programme that enables UK citizens to realise appropriate access to GLP1 therapies privately and online. DiCE- REALM will be the first study in Europe to experience some of the 2.5 million UK citizens who are taking weight loss medications, and it will look at the safety, efficacy, and, crucially, how digital therapeutic tools and behavioural coaching can be optimally combined with innovative pharmacotherapies, such as incretin-based weight-loss medicines (GLP-1s).

By studying these self-funded pathways, DiCE-REALM aims to generate critical insights into patient behaviour, engagement, and long-term outcomes, ensuring that lessons from the private market inform future public provision.

UK Health Innovation Minister, Dr Zubir Ahmed, said, “More than 1 in 3 adults in Scotland’s most deprived areas are living with obesity. The UK Government is committed to tackling inequality wherever it finds it in our country. It’s why this landmark UK government investment is targeting help where it’s needed most in Scotland and meeting people where they are and backing helping the NHS services they trust to treat them.

“The UK Government sponsorship of this landmark Scottish SCoMIS study is a live example that our Life Sciences Sector Plan is working in every part of our country – backing British innovation, Scottish jobs and positioning the UK as a global leader in health research.”

OPIP: Replacing a Broken System

The current tiered model for obesity care has failed people living with obesity (PWO). Access remains patchy, thresholds arbitrary, and referral routes slow. The Obesity Pathway Improvement Programme (OPIP) proposes a single, integrated pathway that replaces tiers with need-based, digitally enabled access.

Under OPIP, primary and community care – supported by pharmacists and accredited digital providers – become the front door for prevention and treatment. Medicines are managed as part of chronic disease care, not an escalation step, and outcomes are tracked through linked data to ensure equity and accountability.

“The UK Government sponsorship of this landmark Scottish SCoMIS study is a live example that our Life Sciences Sector Plan is working in every part of our country – backing British innovation, Scottish jobs and positioning the UK as a global leader in health research” ~ UK Health Innovation Minister Dr Zubir Ahmed.

The Triple Helix for Obesity

Taken together, these programmes form a Triple Helix of action

1. Transformative medicines that deliver measurable cardiovascular renal metabolic, and weight management outcomes.
2. Digital behavioural support to sustain those gains, build primary care capacity and scale access.
3. Public health and prevention to address upstream drivers and reduce inequalities.

This model moves the conversation from isolated interventions to a coherent national framework for prevention-led growth.

Funding the Next Phase – a Sovereign Prevention Fund

Delivering this vision requires predictable funding. Establishing an Obesity & CVRM Sovereign Prevention Fund, modelled on the Cancer Drugs Fund, would secure rapid access to innovation while demonstrating fiscal responsibility. The Fund could be supported by a hypothecated levy on ultra-processed food producers and fast-food delivery platforms, recycling harm into health gain.

This approach would accelerate access to the 181 obesity treatments currently in global development, attract more clinical research to the UK and enable equitable rollout across the NHS.

A National Opportunity for Growth and Health

If fully implemented, these reforms could transform lives and strengthen the economy within the course of this Parliament.

• Health: fewer cases of type 2 diabetes, heart disease, obesity-related cancers, and musculoskeletal conditions; sustained weight loss; and improved wellbeing.
• NHS: reduced waiting lists and pressure on primary care through primary prevention underpinned by digital wrap-around patient support programmes.
• Economy: lower absenteeism, higher workforce participation, and savings that outweigh programme costs.
• Equity: better outcomes for those living in our most deprived communities, closing rather than widening health gaps.

From Evidence to Action

The UK now has the evidence, the partners, and the momentum. SCoMIS will generate the critical real-world data; REALM will demonstrate the benefits of citizen choice; OPIP will build sustainable care pathways; and the Sovereign Prevention Fund will unlock scale. Together, they embody the prevention-led, economically grounded strategy the Health Secretary has championed.

As IQVIA’s SVP and General Manager for Northern Europe, Tim Sheppard notes, “SCoMIS aims to demonstrate, through advanced real world evidence, how expedited access to innovative medicines – combined with IQVIA AI-driven digital patient support – will build capacity in primary care and improve outcomes for patients, whilst driving economic growth.”

This is the moment to act boldly. With clear ministerial backing and collaboration across the public, private, and academic sectors, the UK can lead the world in obesity innovation – turning once-in-a-generation scientific breakthroughs into lasting health and prosperity for all.

Generally, the FPTP system does not lead to intense competition or closely contested two-way races in each constituency and often results in majority governments. However, a shift from a two-party system to a three- or four-party system can create chaotic and unpredictable election outcomes, leading to ‘false’ supermajorities or ungovernable hung parliaments. This was evidenced by the 2024 UK general election, where Labour achieved a supermajority with only 34 per cent of the total votes. 

To understand the current state of FPTP in the UK, we have analysed the last three general elections, as well as Stats&Data Quarterly Westminster Assessments and Voting Intentions (24Q4, 25Q1, and 25Q3). 

Below, we compare the percentage of seats and votes won during the last three elections, alongside our previous projections. During the 2017 and 2019 elections, the percentage of seats and votes won by the major parties was similar. However, in GE 2024 a significant disparity emerged: Labour secured 65 per cent of the seats despite receiving only 34 per cent of the votes, while other parties received a lower percentage of seats relative to their vote share. 

Our projections for QWA 24Q4 and QWA 25Q1 indicated that both the Conservatives and Labour would receive a higher percentage of seats than their actual vote share. However, our latest QWA 25Q3 projections suggest that Reform is now expected to gain a higher percentage of seats than its vote share, while all other parties, except the SNP, are projected to receive a lower percentage of seats relative to their vote share. 

Notably, a minor variation in vote share can result in significant changes in seat allocation. For instance, in our latest poll Reform’s vote share increased by 6 percentage points, but its projected number of seats rose dramatically from around 80 to 280. This creates a lottery-like system, in which different parties experience varying advantages and disadvantages at different times. 

The graph below shows the average vote share required to win a constituency, alongside the margins of victory between the top three candidates. 

The last main contest between Labour and the Conservatives took place in 2019. At that time, the average vote share needed to win was 54 per cent, suggesting that most MPs were elected with an absolute majority. Since then, the rise of parties such as Reform and the Greens, together with a growth in independent candidates, has reduced this average to around 36 per cent in our latest poll. This trend sits uneasily with the core principles of the FPTP electoral system. 

In addition, the margins of victory between first and second place, and between first and third place, have narrowed sharply – from 25.8 per cent and 44.3 per cent in the 2019 election to roughly 8.4 per cent and 17.1 per cent in our latest projections. This decline indicates growing competitiveness in both two-way and three-way contests, as illustrated in the second graph. 

Alternative electoral systems to First-Past-the-Post 

All projections for the alternative electoral systems are based on our latest Quarterly Westminster Assessments and Voting Intentions for 25Q3. The projected seat shares and vote shares are set out below for reference. 

1. Proportional representation 

The Proportional Representation (PR) system allocates seats to each party in line with its overall share of the vote. Constituencies may be represented by multiple members, and a minimum threshold can be applied nationwide to prevent regional parties from being disadvantaged. This system emphasises the overall distribution of votes rather than their concentration in particular areas. As a result, it is often difficult for a single party to secure an outright majority, and coalition governments become the norm. This is evident in countries such as Belgium and the Netherlands, where elections are held under PR and the current governing coalitions each comprise five parties. 

For our analysis, we have divided the UK into four parts – England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – to allow for the representation of regional parties. We have also applied a five per cent threshold to limit the influence of very small parties. 

Compared with our FPTP projections, we expect both Reform and the SNP to see a significant reduction in seats, while the Greens and the Conservatives gain ground. This outcome would almost certainly require a coalition of three or more parties to form a stable government. The main advantage of this scenario is that the percentage of seats won closely matches the percentage of votes received. 

2. Two round system 

The Two-Round System (TRS) is a single-winner electoral system designed to ensure that the elected candidate has the support of a majority of voters. It consists of two rounds of voting. In the first round, voting takes place under FPTP. The two candidates who receive the most votes then progress to a second round. If any candidate receives more than 50 per cent of the votes in the first round, a second round is not required. 

France uses a similar system for electing its parliament. One key advantage of this model over FPTP is that each MP is elected with an absolute majority. In addition, the system tends to favour centrist parties over more extreme ones, as it encourages voters to make choices along ideological lines in the second round, which in turn leads to more tactical voting. 

If elections were conducted using this system, both the Conservatives and Labour would be expected to gain significantly at the expense of Reform, the Greens and the SNP. As noted above, the system promotes tactical voting, which helps limit the influence of more extreme parties. For example, in second-round contests between Reform and the Conservatives, voters from other parties are likely to consolidate behind the Conservatives, even if Reform is ahead in the first round. A similar pattern would be expected in contests between Labour and the Greens. Most other second-round match-ups would be shaped by broad ideological divisions. 

3. Instant-runoff voting or alternative vote 

Instant-runoff voting (IRV) is a ranked voting system used to elect a single winner. It simulates multiple run-off elections through a series of eliminations. In each round, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated, and their votes are redistributed according to the next preferences indicated on the ballot papers. This process continues until only one candidate remains, who is then declared the winner. Australia has used IRV for many years. 

In our analysis, if elections were conducted under this system, the results would broadly resemble those produced by the Two-Round System (TRS), as both are based on similar underlying principles. The main difference is that Reform tends to perform better in constituencies where it competes against the Conservatives. This occurs because left-of-centre votes transfer to Labour, allowing Labour to overtake the Conservatives before the final stage. The final contest therefore becomes a run-off between Labour and Reform, with Reform winning the seat rather than the Conservatives. 

Conclusion

We have examined three alternatives to FPTP. Each produces different outcomes in terms of which party (or parties) governs and the likelihood of a hung parliament, underlining the complexity of British politics. However, all three offer more representative outcomes than FPTP and reduce the scope for highly unpredictable results. 

The NHS wove its web of care around me. From the get-go, I was supported with compassion, empathy, and world-class treatment by an incredibly dedicated team of doctors, nurses and surgeons tasked with helping me beat the disease. The NHS saved me. They saved me. My gratitude and respect for what they did is limitless. 

For more than 76 years, our national  health service has been saving and supporting all of us – our friends, families and  loved ones – through every life stage. Truly, this organisation  is woven into all our lives and my connection to it feels more  personal than ever. 

The NHS under threat

Healthcare, free at the point of use for all, is one of Britain’s noblest principles, admired around the world. It is an enduring  principle that drives me every day. Yet now, the very idea of  the NHS remaining free at the point of use is under threat.  

Lord Darzi’s 2024 review of the NHS, commissioned by this government, highlighted some shockingly critical problems.  Patient access had deteriorated: waiting lists for hospital,  GP, and mental health services had ballooned. Meanwhile,  A&E delays were posing genuine risks to patient safety.  Resources were poorly allocated: too much being spent on  hospitals, while community care and capital investment had  been woefully neglected, leaving buildings crumbling and  technology languishing in the last century. Productivity was  low despite increasing staff levels, with poor patient flow and  inefficient processes holding back output. Together, these  challenges had left the NHS overstretched, inefficient, and  struggling to meet rising demand. 

“Of course we already knew, before entering government, that business as usual  was not an option” ~ Secretary of State for Health and Social Care Wes Streeting MP.

Lord Darzi’s report simply confirmed the scale and urgency of the task: the “money in, poorer services out” cycle has to end.

10-Year Health Plan

That is why, earlier this year, we launched the most extensive  public engagement on the NHS in a generation, Change  NHS, culminating in the publication of the 10-Year Health Plan (10YHP).  

This is not a short-term sticking plaster, but a long-term  strategy to re-energise the health service. What differentiates  it from past efforts is delivery: the plan is already being  implemented, backed by real funding and structural reform. 

At its core are three “big shifts”: 

• from hospital to community, 

• from analogue to digital, 

• from sickness to prevention. 

These ambitions are not new, but this time they are matched  with the resources, workforce, and accountability needed to  make them real. The first months of implementation have  shown what delivery looks like in practice: 

Funding: an additional £29 billion has been committed in  real terms over the next three years, not just to patch holes,  but to invest in long-term productivity and reform. 

Workforce: over 2,000 extra doctors are already in post, with further expansion underway. 

Thousands of new appointments have been released  through recruitment and smarter scheduling, giving  patients faster access. And now, instead of sending every  patient straight into a hospital queue, more GPs are getting  rapid expert advice from specialists on when referrals are  needed. Hundreds of thousands of people are now avoiding  unnecessary delays and receiving faster treatment closer to  home. The 8am scramble to book GP appointments is over for  many as practices keep online booking systems open outside core surgery hours. 

Cancer and diagnostics: advances in screening and  detection technology are being rolled out nationally, enabling  earlier diagnosis, intervention and better survival rates. 

Med-tech innovation, from AI-assisted imaging to faster  blood tests, is moving from pilot to practice. 

Reducing waiting lists: the backlog is turning a corner.  By expanding capacity, streamlining pathways, and tackling  inefficiencies, we are shortening waits that frustrate patients  and demoralise staff. 

Productivity and efficiency: a determined drive to reduce  agency spend is paying off, with more shifts covered by  permanent staff, stabilising teams and saving money that  can be reinvested in frontline care. 

Indeed, acute trust productivity rose by 2.7 per cent over the past year, higher than our two per cent target.

“Early wins” driving the 10 year plan

Leadership and accountability: for the first time,  underperforming trusts are being named in league tables.  This transparency is driving a culture shift: strong leadership  will be celebrated, while failing institutions are expected to  improve rapidly under clear mandates. 

These early wins demonstrate the plan is not just about  aspiration, it’s about delivery, and it is already changing the patient experience. 

One of the most significant reforms underway is the creation of Neighbourhood Health Centres, integrating GPs, community nurses, mental health professionals, and diagnostic services  under one roof. By offering credible local alternatives, these  centres will, over time, reduce hospital admissions and ease  pressure on acute wards. Crucially, Integrated Care Systems (ICSs)  are being empowered to adapt these models to local needs,  while being held accountable for results. This blend of local flexibility and national rigour is the bedrock of sustainable reform. 

NHS app – a “digital front door”

The NHS App is also evolving into the true “digital front door”  of the service. By 2027, the NHS will have effectively set up  an ‘online hospital’ – NHS Online. This digital innovation will  connect patients to expert clinicians anywhere in England.  Already, thousands of extra appointments have been booked  digitally, saving patients time and reducing administrative  burdens for staff. 

“Perhaps the most profound shift is a renewed focus on prevention” ~ Secretary of State for Health and Social Care Wes Streeting MP.

From reactive to proactive care

For too long, the NHS has been forced into reactive care,  treating illness once it has taken hold. That is changing.  Expanded screening, vaccination campaigns, and proactive  management of chronic conditions are now central to  delivery. These measures are not only cost-effective but  also vital to addressing health inequalities, not least in the  younger generation. That’s why we’ve moved to ban sales of  energy drinks to under 16s, announced restrictions on junk  food TV advertising before the 9pm watershed, and tasked  supermarkets to tackle obesity by setting new standards to  make the average weekly shop healthier.  

Life expectancy still varies dramatically across England. By  embedding prevention into local services, we are beginning  to close the persistent gap in outcomes between wealthy  areas and deprived coastal or rural communities. 

The NHS is being given the clarity it has long lacked. The  new mandate sets sharper performance requirements on  waiting times, GP access, urgent and emergency care, and  cancer diagnosis, with progress published openly. 

Improvement plans are no longer optional. Autonomy is  being earned by results, while decisive interventions are made  where standards are not met. This is how we will make sure  ambition is translated into outcomes for patients. 

Final thought

The 10-Year Health Plan is ambitious, but it is also practical,  realistic, and frontloaded to deliver 

Patients are beginning to see shorter waits and better access.  Staff are benefiting from clearer priorities, stronger support,  and a renewed sense of purpose. This is the NHS we all want. A  modernised national health service, one that is stronger, fairer,  and reflective of our increasingly diverse and complex society. 

By embracing innovation, investing in people, technology,  and prevention, we’re building an NHS fit for the future:  resilient, responsive, and ready to serve the health needs of  this country for generations to come.  

The 2025 Budget

When Reeves announced a freeze on income‑tax thresholds through to 2030‑31, the jovial cheers for those who feel wronged on a viciously unfair progressive tax system in comparison to their jet-setting superiors were unfortunately premature; a country and workforce constantly adjusting to real income growth ensures workers will gradually be brought into the fold of an expanding tax base in the form of a fiscal drag. Beyond tax and welfare, the Budget included a host of smaller but cumulative changes. Reductions to the tax‑free portions of some savings vehicles (e.g. ISAs), reform of pension contribution rules, and tighter rules for capital tax reliefs – the net effect for many households is a squeeze on disposable income and thus one may be forgiven for thinking workers are not getting a fair deal from this budget. The glaring reality is that even policies in hot pursuit of social democratic, macro-reforms nibble at the edges of injustice. Every tweak, freeze, rise, loss, gain, packaged as either an unfortunate sacrifice or grand victory either spares a worker a menial amount, or even leaves them worse off. If there is an abundance of surplus, food wastage, profit hikes to make Rockefeller himself blush, why are workers still bearing the brunt?

Recent data make both painfully and embarrassingly clear just how acute the crisis of poverty has become in Britain. In 2023/24, around 4.5 million children (roughly 31 per cent of all children in the UK) lived in relative poverty after housing costs. The alarming statistic that a majority of these children – 72 per cent – reside in households where at least one adult works, then, is seemingly immune to the sneering attitude from the likes of Thatcher and Howe that workshy, feckless societal drains are culpable for dwindling living conditions and household food scarcity. Those in larger families are worst hit: 44 per cent of children in households with three or more children are in poverty, compared with 25 per cent of those in two-child families and only 21 per cent in single-child households. Thus, Reeves’ refreshing announcement that the two-child benefit cap will be lifted is met with a sigh of vindicating relief from those punished for the crime of giving birth. But yet, the buckling weight of systemic poverty remains; the lesson is ultimately whether Labour are ready to confront the forces of exploitation which govern this suffering. Thus, the rallying cry of “things can only get better” falls short for countless families and workplaces up and down a nation rife with economic misery.

Poverty

Victorians often saw poverty as a transient state. A poor person was someone in the passenger seat to riches, akin to an ape on his evolutionary journey to homosapiens, and thus the state intervening in the laws of the marketplace would only derail this desirable evolution. We have largely evolved past this stage – much like apes – though not quite the cleansed utopia dreamt up by various socialist thinkers where poverty is widely accepted as a manufactured societal ailment, made arable by the dynamics of exploitation. We now have developed theories on wealth inequality and economic injustice wrapped up in enough academic sophistry to make Marx himself blush; welfare states robust enough that they’re relentlessly shrouded in allegations of being vessels of the Nanny State, yet simultaneously those dependent on them never quite escaping the lives of deviancy and struggle that material abundance absolves us of. Dominic Raab, summing up this worldview with characteristic precision, once declared that the typical food bank user “was not someone languishing in poverty, but someone who had a cash flow problem episodically.” In other words, poverty is never a structural misfortune, but rather a brief inconvenience in the grand evolutionary journey toward affluence.

After a while, poverty became an irritating spot that we grew to accept was probably a mole, and thus here to stay as a hideous stain on an otherwise unblemished utopia. Ideologically, though, it became growingly unacceptable. Religious movements, philanthropy, and later secular humanitarian impulses emphasised the intrinsic dignity of all humans. The focus was moral and emotional – poverty was no longer just unfortunate, it was unjust in a human sense. Suffering was something that ought to be alleviated, regardless of economic “inevitability.” Beyond a moral injustice, though, it was a recurring nightmare for the political class; too stark a division between the rich and the poor was politically destabilising. Benjamin Disraeli, issuing a political project that embodied a man waking up in cold sweats at the idea of poverty-stricken armed insurrectionists, gave birth to modern-day reformist measures. Decades later, figures just as Dickensian such as Boris Johnson would drag Disraeli’s seminal project – principally espoused in his book “Sybil: or the Two Nations” – into disrepute when he coupled his car-crash of a premiership with the declaration that “I am a one-nation Conservative.”

The 1970s arrived, in all its muddled promise of progress, flared trousers, and disco-fuelled nihilism, and yet poverty was now starting to resemble a bad joke. Reports and surveys revealed it lurking not just in the slums but in the very heart of suburban streets, and suddenly the shrug of “everyone pulls themselves up eventually” felt embarrassingly quaint. Stagflation, unemployment, and the oil crisis made economic hardship hard to ignore, while sociologists and economists busied themselves giving poverty a respectable, technical name— “relative deprivation”—so that nobody could mistake it for mere personal failure. Welfare programs had expanded, yet the image of the welfare-dependent lingered like a persistent stain.

Thatcher

Thatcher’s glinting ascent marked a new checkpoint in British culture; in May 1979, she unashamedly advertised the neon-lit narcissism of excess and the return of ‘the Feel-Good Factor’. When monetarism and containerisation bulldozed local economies, notably Liverpool and Newcastle amongst the most afflicted, her acolyte Norman Tebbit argued the onus was on the unemployed to “get on their bike and find work,” just as his father so valiantly did in the aftermath of the Great Depression. In some sense, post-war Britain muddled along with a civic sense that poverty was, at least, a shared disgrace. Thatcher, in all her sanguine virility, arrived on the steps of 10 Downing Street to deliver the tragic news that we were on our own, merely solitary atoms of self-assured consciousness; that poverty and suffering was the cosmic punishment for those unfortunate enough to stumble beneath its inexorable law.

It shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise that when Tony Blair – who Margaret Thatcher once boasted was her proud lovechild – arrived in 1997, his red rosette was not enough to fool everyone. His meteoric ascension affirmed the suspicion that preaching from a red despatch box didn’t automatically mark a progressive future and signalled the end of the hopeful contradiction that youthful radicalism and centrist managerialism could live together in harmony. Unsurprisingly to many, being pictured with Oasis and drinking pints with rolled up shirtsleeves did not afford him the luxury of being able to completely shake the Oxford graduate, Middle England pneuma in which he was immaculately clad in. 

An authority as unimpeachable as the Son of God said that the poor were always with us. Ironically, it is modern day Capitalism that has assumed a quasi-religious form whereby its followers have been divorced from their conditional support, now venerating the market with the devotion of a Nicene Creed. And in recent years, the piety has metastasised into fanatical abandon. Striking workers cast as heretics and the rituals of profit and quarterly earnings as the Apollonian exemplar of reason and order.

The British class system

To understand why Britain continues to wobble under the weight of its own class system, it helps to peek behind the velvet ropes of power – not that anyone on the outside ever really gets a look. Privilege in Britain is less an accident of birth than a choreographed apprenticeship in influence. While the rest of the country navigates the churning uncertainty of precarious work and ever-rising living costs, a few institutions quietly perfect the art of fine-tuning adolescents into diplomats and party leaders. 

I know nothing of what actually goes on behind the doors of Eton and Harrow – or any private school for that matter, as my Catholic state education only afforded me the luxury of scribbled-on textbooks and a lifetime of guilt rather than extensive networks into British politics. However, it‘s no secret that these elite institutions breed a certain type of meticulously scripted state official. If they are asked whether it’s true that they have cunningly embezzled their expenses on lampshades or slotted spoons from Marks & Spencer, they are quick to retort that there are matters of far greater importance to attend to like the cost of living, or coldly condemning Hamas.

Eton and Harrow reign supreme in their manufacturing of these types – out of the 57 individuals who’ve ever taken Prime Ministerial office in Britain, twenty of them attended Eton College and seven attended Harrow. Boris Johnson was the immaculate emblem of the industrially manufactured politician from which his Etonian milieu is almost synonymous with. Brushing shoulders with Cameron – whom he later went on to feud with – he was, what we often call the poor when they stab someone on their pebble-dashed council estate, a product of his environment. Figures like Johnson aren’t easily marooned from the occupation in which his parliamentary counterparts on the Labour benches with their union backgrounds can be sublimely detached from. Boris Johnson is just a politician, stamped and packaged, destined to legislate.

Capitalism and socialism

Capitalism, as we know it, renders the human being utterly expendable. Zero hour contracts, “trial shifts”, the ever looming threat of destitution should your team not meet sales targets. Deep inside all of us, there is a yearning that we don’t want to be arbitrarily let go – we are utterly terrified of being abandoned. Socialism, then, greatly exceeds economic theory or a ledger of redistribution. Emotionally, it expresses a deep-seated longing that we always have a place in the world’s heart; not just to be cast to the side of a curb in a sleeping bag, left to ferment alone in one’s filth – that we will not be cast out. 

Should workers ever stumble across Capital Volume I by Marx en masse, it would hardly strike them as a revelation. Sure, the terminology would be alien to them, but the theories themselves would feel distinctly unremarkable. A worker feels exploitation in his bones when his back aches as his boss texts him from the Bahamas asking him why he was twenty minutes late that morning. He feels it when he and his wife hold back the tears when they tell their children Father Christmas isn’t coming this year. He feels it with every panicked shiver when the energy bill letters falls pitifully on the doormat. Every factory floor, every pub, every shop till is filled with individuals who have a socialist knocking on the door to come out.

The debate on socialism has often been opposed by its archetypal nemesis – capitalism. The two are argued to be cosmic opposites, Yin & Yang, forever pointing the finger at each other’s ills or gurning about the days of Soviet-era bread queues. However, socialists don’t exist in the same realm as those that describe themselves as capitalists – hence a “capitalist” university society is an almost unheard rarity (a Conservative society at most, although true Conservatives shouldn’t concern themselves with finance capital, but that’s a debate for another day), yet virtually every campus globally will have a group of at least ten students waving the red flag and fiercely talking about rent controls through a megaphone. This is because socialism is, firstly, an entirely provisional matter. To tear down the Che Guevara poster from your wall, bin that beaten up copy of Capital, stay home and finish that painting rather than attend another tedious committee meeting, is a yearning at the heart of every true socialist. That there is life after socialism, is the point of socialism. 

In that regard, a capitalist is more akin to a Buddhist; a socialist, by comparison, is a self-thwarting figure, working towards a world that no longer requires them, more akin to a doctor or a pharmacist. An ideology centred around consolidation and exponential growth such as capitalism, on the other hand, is wholly and utterly self-preserving. The idea of its end is the existential dread which has motivated most policy action in the 20th and 21st centuries. Capital has become so tightly woven into the fabric of the British state that any fleeting attempt to redress material privilege has been treated as an act of sedition. When the miners dared to resist the gospel of the market, the state responded with riot shields and truncheons. The police, sworn to be the custodians of public order, became the militarised wing of a neoliberal revolution. When the miners eventually succumbed to starvation and military onslaught, Tebbit proudly claimed: “we broke not just the strike, but the spell.” The “spell” he was referring to was the unseen outstretched hand that reminded us of our kinship and unity; the invisible threads of community that prevented us from being subjugated by tyranny. 

Final thoughts

Thus, what kind of liberating macro-reforms can an autumn budget truly bring us? If Britain still needs socialism, it is not because socialism offers some utopian cartography for a land beyond scarcity, but because the alternatives have become so comically threadbare that they no longer even pretend to describe the world we inhabit. The British state has always been adept at converting systemic horror into personal failure, as though capitalism were a sort of celestial weather system whose tempests we must simply dress appropriately for. Socialism, then, is unfashionable enough to maintain that poverty is not an act of God and that the nation’s entrenched hierarchies are not encoded in the genome. Scandalously, it suggests that human beings deserve institutions built around their flourishing rather than their subordination. Put simply, deep inside workers, even when the Union flags are out in force, even in every chant of “save our kids” rather than “The Red Flag”, we don’t just want the crumbs from the edge of the table anymore, we want the whole cake.

Featured image via Rwendaland / Wikimedia Commons.

There has quite clearly been a shift in the Government’s stance on the ‘B-word’. At last month’s Labour Party Conference, and in recent public statements, ministers have begun explicitly acknowledging the economic damage inflicted by leaving the EU. Until now, the word was used rarely, if ever – a taboo term across Westminster. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor, and virtually the entire political class have long known the damage leaving the European Union has done, but they were hesitant to articulate it for fear of the political fallout.

Brexit: a 4 per cent drop in the UK economy

The Office for Budget Responsibility has been consistent: leaving the EU will reduce the size of the UK economy by around 4 per cent and cut trade intensity by roughly 15 per cent in the long run. These are not abstract academic projections – they mean lost opportunities, higher costs, and real impacts on people’s lives. This is the reality we are living with, and only now is the Government beginning to face up to what the public has known for some time.

This change must be welcomed – but with caution. One reason is obvious: a second ‘B-word’ is looming. The Budget. Rachel Reeves is already laying the groundwork for the tough and unpopular choices she will inevitably announce – and she wants Brexit to take some of the blame.

And rightly so. If you are going to speak of the damage, you must be honest about where the responsibility lies. But it is not acceptable to acknowledge the harm without offering solutions to undo as much of it as we can.

Progress being made with a Brexit “reset”

The Government’s ‘reset’ with the EU is undoubtedly a step forward. The UK–EU Summit last May showed a willingness to move forward together. And for many sectors, progress is being made – albeit too slowly.

An eventual veterinary agreement would remove much of the paperwork and cost associated with trading agri-food with the EU – one of the industry’s greatest demands. Returning to the EU’s internal electricity market would replace the inefficient trading systems we currently have, which are costing hundreds of millions of pounds a year – costs ultimately passed on to consumers. Linking our carbon trading system back to the EU’s – which the UK helped to design – would remove the need for the punishing carbon border taxes on goods traded between the UK and EU, which are due to come in next year.

All of this is welcome. But – and it is a big but – these steps alone will not reverse the long-term damage. They are fine-tuning mechanisms, not economic transformation.

So, what must come next?

First, we need a clear, staged strategy to return the UK to the heart of Europe. At the European Movement, we have long advocated a step-by-step approach – ambitious, deliberate, and honest with the public. We know UK–EU summits will become annual events. They should not be photo opportunities but milestones. Each should deliver specific progress: on market access, smoother trade in goods and services, and sector-by-sector reintegration. We should be thinking not just about the next summit, but the one after that, and the one after that – each taking us closer to where we need to be.

Second, the British public must be able to see and feel the benefits. It is no longer enough to simply promise improved trade. People need to see jobs created, exports growing, household energy bills falling, festivals and sport enriched by easier travel, and professional careers no longer held back by red tape. Unless the gains are visible and tangible, any policy will lack legitimacy.

Third – and most importantly – we must recognise that the most powerful changes lie deeper than incremental fixes. For real, transformational benefit, we must rebuild access to the single market – not just for goods, but for services and people: professionals, artists, musicians, touring performers, universities, and researchers. These human and economic links matter as much as the numbers. And we must work towards a UK–EU customs territory. That does not mean automatically re-joining the Customs Union, but it does mean developing a customs-union-style arrangement.

Final thought: Brexit and the Budget

In short, yes, I welcome the Government’s new honesty about the economic damage of leaving the EU. It is overdue. But if Ministers are serious about that damage, then words are not enough. The Government must be bolder. It needs to go further and faster and not be paralysed by fear of Reform or by those still fighting the battles of 2016. The public are ahead of the politicians on this – they can see the costs in their jobs, their shops, their bills, and their children’s opportunities. So let us tell the truth about where the blame lies – and then have the courage to fix it.

At the time, the Chancellor insisted this was a one-off. That the books had been balanced and the slate wiped clean. Now, before even delivering her second Budget, Reeves has conceded that more tax increases are coming.

A misguided political decision

The Chancellor’s emergency press conference at the beginning of November confirmed what Britain feared: Reeves has no plan for growth, only a plan for more taxes. Behind the warm words about “fairness” was a simple truth – when Labour runs out of money, they come after yours. Instead of discipline, we heard excuses. Instead of a strategy, we heard spin. And instead of reassurance, we got confirmation that another round of tax rises is already being prepared.

The Chancellor’s choices have far-reaching consequences. Under Reeves, Labour has embarked on a borrowing spree that dwarfs anything seen outside of a national emergency. The Government is taking on hundreds of billions more debt than the plans it inherited and is set to spend nearly half a trillion pounds extra over the course of this Parliament. There is no pandemic, no global shock, no crisis to justify this. It is a political decision – and one never put to the electorate.

Reeves says, “The world has thrown challenges our way”, but leadership is about meeting challenges, not hiding behind them. Every Chancellor faces headwinds – what matters is how you steer the ship. Reeves has chosen to spend recklessly, borrow without restraint and pile the bill on working families.

Debt under the Conservative Government

Contrast this with the record of the last Conservative Government. Before the pandemic struck, debt as a share of the economy was falling, precisely because we made the difficult choices needed to keep the public finances under control. That discipline gave Britain the flexibility to protect jobs and businesses when COVID-19 hit. 

“A responsible government today should, again, be focused on controlling spending and reducing debt” ~ Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Rt Hon Sir Mel Stride MP.

A responsible government today should, again, be focused on controlling spending and reducing debt – especially with annual interest payments on government borrowing now exceeding £100 billion. Instead, Labour is heading in the opposite direction. Borrowing more, spending more, and taxing more is not stability. It is short-term politics at the expense of long-term prosperity. 

Reeves and “necessary choices”

Reeves has spoken about “necessary choices”. The necessary choice is to live within our means, not to raid the pockets of those who already do. The necessary choice is reform, not endless tax rises that choke growth and punish aspiration. Labour’s choices aren’t necessary, they’re avoidable. And they’re the result of economic mismanagement, not economic necessity.

The Chancellor claims to be delivering stability, yet borrowing £100 billion in just six months – the highest figure on record outside the pandemic – is anything but stable. And neither is a welfare system whose costs rise without restraint, or an economy where inflation has doubled and business confidence has fallen. True stability comes from a government that lives within its means and makes every pound of public money count. 

The answer is not to tax working people further but to get a grip on spending. At the Conservative Party Conference, I outlined £47 billion of achievable savings across government – efficiencies that could reduce the deficit, ease pressure on taxpayers and help the economy grow. These are practical, responsible reforms, not reckless cuts. They represent the same care with public money that households and small businesses apply every day. 

“The Chancellor claims to be delivering stability, yet borrowing £100 billion in just six months – the highest figure on record outside the pandemic – is anything but stable” ~ Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Rt Hon Sir Mel Stride MP.

Reports suggest the Chancellor is considering a reduction in Cash ISA allowances – penalising millions of responsible savers who have done the right thing. A government so quick to borrow without restraint should not be punishing those who show restraint themselves. 

Other rumoured measures are equally concerning, including freezes to income-tax thresholds, further changes to National Insurance, and new levies on professionals such as doctors, solicitors, and accountants. When governments cannot control spending, they inevitably turn to the taxpayer. 

The budget’s impact on other policy-making decisions

The same lack of discipline is evident in welfare policy. Instead of implementing the reforms I put forward as Work and Pensions Secretary – a system that rewards work and targets support effectively – Labour has allowed costs to spiral. It’s led to more borrowing, higher taxes, and fewer incentives to work – a vicious cycle that future generations will have to pay for. A serious government would reform welfare to make it fairer and more sustainable. 

Under Reeves’ watch, inflation has risen sharply, the cost of living remains high, and interest rates are likely to stay higher for longer because confidence in fiscal discipline is fading. Markets are growing uneasy. Business investment has slowed, and productivity growth is weakening. Even within Downing Street, there are reports that the Prime Minister is building his own economic team – a clear sign of waning confidence in Reeves’ management. 

Britain cannot afford another Budget like the last one. Borrowing and spending on this scale will not deliver prosperity; it will undermine it. What this country needs is a credible plan to restore confidence, reform welfare and rebuild growth through enterprise, not endless expansion of the state.

Abolishing stamp duty

The Conservatives have such a plan: reduce unnecessary spending, restore fiscal discipline and create the conditions for lower, simpler taxes that reward hard work and aspiration. That should begin with abolishing stamp duty – one of the most damaging taxes in our economy. Economists across the spectrum agree that it discourages mobility, deters investment and makes it harder for families to buy their first home. Under a disciplined approach to spending, we could afford to scrap both while still bringing down the deficit.

Britain’s strength has always come from combining sound money with social responsibility – from governments that support enterprise, reward effort and protect the next generation from the debts of today. The current course does none of those things. 

The choice before the country is clear. Labour’s path is one of higher borrowing, uncontrolled spending, and broken promises. The Conservative alternative is founded on discipline, fairness, and growth – a belief that prosperity is built through hard work, innovation, and responsible government, not through ever-rising taxes and debt.

If the purpose of Rachel Reeves’ pre-Budget address this morning was to silence mounting speculation about tax rises, it failed.  

Standing behind the slogan “Strong Foundations, Secure Future” in Downing Street, the Chancellor sought to project calm control ahead of her second Budget. Instead, she delivered the clearest signal yet that Labour is preparing to break its manifesto commitment not to raise income tax, VAT, or National Insurance. 

The speech was an unusual move in itself. Chancellors rarely deliver major addresses from Downing Street so close to a Budget. But this was not an economic update – it was political choreography. Reeves’ intent was to start softening up the public, investors, and her own MPs for difficult choices ahead. Yet the message that emerged was not reassurance, but inevitability: higher taxes are coming. 

A calculated prelude 

Reeves opened by declaring that she would make “the choices necessary to deliver strong foundations for the economy,” stressing the need to bring down national debt and the cost of living. Her tone was careful, measured, and deliberately unspecific. The repeated references to fiscal responsibility and “iron-clad” rules betrayed a Chancellor more concerned with credibility in the bond markets than comfort in the backbenches. 

Her argument rested on two pillars. First, that the UK’s fiscal position is worse than previously understood, with national debt at £2.6 trillion – or 94 per cent of national income – and £1 in every £10 of taxpayers’ money now going on debt interest. Second, that global and domestic shocks have squeezed her room for manoeuvre: sluggish productivity, higher borrowing costs, rising defence pressures, and stubborn inflation. These, she argued, are not the result of her own mismanagement, but the legacy of Conservative rule and an “ill-conceived Brexit.” 

In short, Reeves’ message was that she has been left to clean up the mess – and that cleaning up costs money. 

“The message that emerged was not reassurance, but inevitability: higher taxes are coming”.

Managing expectations – or breaking promises? 

Labour’s election manifesto promised not to raise the main rates of income tax, National Insurance, or VAT. Reeves reaffirmed those pledges as recently as September. But this morning, she pointedly did not repeat them. Nor did she rule out rises when pressed by journalists afterwards. 

Instead, she invoked the need to make “necessary choices,” to “fund our public services sustainably,” and to “protect the economy from a return to austerity.” Those phrases, repeated throughout, were the linguistic equivalent of white smoke drifting from No. 11 – the early signal of a decision already made. 

The challenge for Reeves is that the rationale she outlined today – a worsening £22 billion fiscal gap, a productivity downgrade from the Office for Budget Responsibility, and the costs of international instability – reads less like an explanation and more like a pre-emptive justification. If the Government was elected on a promise to end the “cycle of decline,” today’s message was that decline is proving more expensive to end than expected. 

The framing of necessity 

Reeves’ political strategy is clear: recast any tax rises not as broken promises, but as acts of national responsibility. “Politicians who offer easy answers are irresponsible,” she said pointedly – a line aimed as much at her Conservative predecessors as at her own critics. Yet the phrase also neatly anticipates the charge of betrayal. By presenting tax rises as “necessary,” Reeves is seeking to move the argument from morality to mathematics. 

The problem is that voters may not see it that way. Labour’s landslide victory was built on trust – the promise that a Labour Government would deliver change without shock. Many voters who turned from the Conservatives to Labour did so on the understanding that their own taxes would not rise. If Reeves does lift the basic or higher rate, even marginally, it will be politically costly, however carefully she frames it. 

The economic reality behind the rhetoric 

Economically, Reeves is correct to say that the fiscal picture is tightening. The OBR’s expected downgrade in productivity forecasts could add up to £20 billion to her fiscal challenge, and the Chancellor’s own rules – to have debt falling as a share of GDP by the end of the Parliament, and not to borrow for day-to-day spending – sharply constrain her options. 

The question, then, is not whether Reeves will raise revenue, but how. The Resolution Foundation has suggested that a modest income tax rise, offset by a cut in National Insurance, could raise £6 billion while limiting pain for most workers. Others have proposed extending the freeze in tax thresholds to 2030, a stealthier but equally costly option for households. Each of these measures would test Labour’s promise not to raise taxes on “working people.” 

The Chancellor could instead target capital gains, inheritance, or wealth taxes – measures more aligned with Labour’s political instincts – but these yield less and come with complex behavioural effects. As Reeves herself noted, there are “limits to how much government can borrow.” The implication is unavoidable: the largest levers are those Labour pledged not to touch. 

A controlled performance, but a risky act 

Reeves projected seriousness, consistency, and fiscal prudence – qualities designed to reassure financial markets and middle-ground voters. But beneath the polish lay the beginnings of a difficult few weeks politically. 

This was, as one commentator put it, “the first third of the Budget speech” delivered three weeks early: an exercise in expectation management. Yet if her aim was to dampen speculation, the effect was the opposite. Every line about “necessary choices” or “sustainability” has only fuelled the sense that major tax rises are now inevitable. 

The Chancellor may hope that by framing her decisions in advance, she can control the narrative when the Budget is delivered. But politics rarely allows such neat sequencing. By stepping out early, Reeves has invited scrutiny of not only the scale of the fiscal hole but the credibility of the promises Labour made to fill it. 

A test of trust 

For now, the Chancellor’s message is that Labour remains a party of growth and fairness, capable of restoring economic stability without returning to austerity. Yet in choosing to highlight the constraints rather than the opportunities, Reeves risks cementing a perception that Labour’s ambitions are already being hemmed in by fiscal orthodoxy. 

Her speech was meant to build confidence ahead of the Budget. Instead, it has raised the stakes. If, on 26 November, Reeves announces the very tax rises she spent months insisting would not happen, the question will not simply be whether they are economically necessary – but whether the Government can maintain the political trust that made them possible in the first place. 

Rhodri ab Owen

Managing Director of Camlas

Rhodri ab Owen, Managing Director of Camlas, writes on yesterday’s by-election in Caerphilly: how the result is a bolstering cause for hope for Plaid Cymru, how it has dealt a blow to Reform UK, and why Labour may ‘face a total wipeout’ in May.

Plaid storms to victory in Caerphilly

With a yellow weather warning in place, nerves were high in Caerphilly as storm Benjamin struck on polling day. Many were concerned that it would dampen turnout in the seat, which was expected to go to a nail-biting finish between Plaid Cymru and Reform UK. In the end, Plaid Cymru stormed to victory with a turnout figure of 50.43%, which meant that for the first time ever a devolved election in Wales achieved a turnout of more than 50%.

It was 14th time lucky for Plaid Cymru’s candidate, Lindsay Whittle, who first stood in the 1983 General Election for Caerphilly. When he is sworn in as the new Senedd Member, he will only hold the seat for six months. The Senedd election next May will bring with it a new voting system and new constituencies. However, this by-election was seen as a barometer of the state of Welsh politics, and it certainly offered a clear signal that long standing political patterns in Wales are under immense pressures.

A catastrophic result for Labour

If yesterday’s result was replicated in May, Labour would be facing a total wipeout under the new Senedd electoral system.

There is no hiding from this result for Labour, a party which has been such a dominant force in the area. They have held the Caerphilly seat at every single election since 1918, with substantial majorities. The old adage of weighing votes for Labour applied here. Trailing in a poor third place will be a traumatic result for the party.

The blame game has already started, with many turning their anger towards the UK Government and calling on First Minister Eluned Morgan to draw a clearer distinction between Welsh Labour and the ever increasingly unpopular UK Labour party. She has tried, but so far failed to do so, and the pressure will be on for stronger leadership and a more distinctive Welsh way of doing business.

This result also means that currently, Labour holds 29 out of the 60 Senedd seats, making it even harder for the party to pass its 2026/27 budget. There will be months of negotiations ahead for Eluned Morgan, as she tries to reach agreement with the opposition parties.

‘If yesterday’s result was replicated in May, Labour would be facing a total wipeout under the new Senedd electoral system’ ~ Rhodri ab Owen

A Government in waiting

Plaid Cymru will be delighted with the scale of this victory in what was predicted to be a tight race. This historic win for the party will solidify Plaid’s leader Rhun ap Iorwerth’s position as the First Minister in waiting in Wales, and this will be a launchpad to that campaign. Recent polls had seen Plaid neck and neck with Reform UK and the party’s strategy of positioning themselves as the only credible alternative to Farage’s party paid dividend in Caerphilly – a strategy they will seek to replicate in the months ahead to May.

Disappointment for Reform

Reform UK will also be disappointed with this result, despite a decent second position. With high expectations, the party poured money and resource into the constituency, with numerous visits from Nigel Farage and senior party figures. Attacks from Plaid and Labour around Russian bribes to former high-profile party member, Nathan Gill, seem to have impacted their candidate, Llyr Powell, who also worked for Mr Gill as a caseworker during his time as an MEP. Their ambitions to be the largest party in the Senedd will have been dealt a knock in the early hours of this morning and a period of reflection will be needed for the party.

‘Without a shadow of a doubt, there appears to be a realignment of Welsh politics’ ~ Rhodri ab Owen

Realignment of Welsh politics

Without a shadow of a doubt, there appears to be a realignment of Welsh politics. The Caerphilly by-election result replicated what opinion polls have been saying for some time in Wales, that over a century of Labour’s dominance is coming to an end. It’s difficult to imagine what the party can do with only six months to go until the May election, to turn the tide back in its favour. The Caerphilly by-election really is a transformational moment in Welsh electoral politics.

Ruth Jones’s Early Career

Ruth Jones is a rare figure in politics, having opened her career not in policy or business, but in public health; she was a physiotherapist for 32 years before becoming a trade union full time officer. But, as she explained, this is not as great a discrepancy as it may at first seem: “in both roles, you’re advocating for people; you’re representing patients or clients or staff”.

She repeatedly draws on her NHS experience during the webinar, testament to the fundamental, formative training she garnered from her work: although not centred in public policy, clearly of invaluable worth for human skills, team leadership and unified values.

She explained that “as a member of staff, I was always part of a team”; regardless of status or role, as a manager of a team of 50, she “could never have done that job without the cooperation of the team” – a constantly evolving and diverse team of “admin, support workers, cleaners, porters”. Her work gave her a deep understanding of the “spirit of teamwork”: “everybody had to work together to make sure we got the best for the patient or the client that we were working with”.

“Health is a massive issue. The NHS is a national health service, but at the moment it seems to be a national sick service” ~ Ruth Jones MP

Ruth Jones’ entry into politics

Frustrated by her limited power to affect real, tangible change during her time as a trade union officer, Jones swiftly learnt that “you need to get higher up the food chain to actually make a difference”. From campaigning in unwinnable seats to winning her home seat in 2019, Jones’ political career saw her return to her homeland, having lived in her victorious constituency for most of her life, and having been a Labour member for over 20 years.

Ruth Jones’ loyalty to, and firm sense of, the importance of Welsh identity spans back to her political inspirations. She cited Nye Bevan and Neil Kinnock – “brilliant orators, passionate, powerful and really strong advocates for their local community”. She endeavours, through her roles as constituency MP and Welsh Select Committee chair, to emulate their sincerity; to serve as a “passionate representative of her patch”.

‘Nye Bevan and Neil Kinnock were brilliant orators, passionate, powerful and really strong advocates for their local community’ ~ Ruth Jones MP

Welsh Affairs Committee Operations

As Chair of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee, Ruth Jones outlined the Committee’s cross-party remit to examine how Westminster policy affects Wales and to scrutinise the UK Government’s engagement with devolved institutions.

“We work together – Labour, Plaid Cymru, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats – to get the best outcomes for Wales“, she explained, highlighting the difference between a Select Committee’s modelling on collaboration and balance, and the often adversarial nature of Prime Minister’s Questions.

The Committee focuses on issues effecting people in Wales, specifically retained powers such as justice, immigration, and defense. Its current inquiries include prisons, probation and rehabilitation; the economic regeneration of coalfields and the steel industry; and the impact of trade and inheritance tax on Welsh farmers. The Committee questions the Secretary of State for Wales twice a year and invites the First Minister from the Senedd, a partnership crucial for avoiding overlap and ensuring comprehensive coverage of issues, particularly regarding devolved powers like health and education.

Cross-Border Health and Social Care

Upon Fatima Kamara’s questioning on the most important areas of healthcare reform facing the UK Government, Jones’ response was immediately impassioned: “Health is a massive issue. The NHS is a national health service, but at the moment it seems to be a national sick service”. She insisted that Government should be looking at “far more” preventative health promotion and ill health prevention in order for “people to live long, happy and healthy lives”: “it’s no good living to the age of 90 if you’re bedbound for 10 years”.

Another crucial point made, and one clearly influenced by Jones’ career in healthcare, was that the UK needs “to have a long term view on health”. She referred to the Smoking White Paper of the 1970s to 1990s which linked cancer to nicotine – but highlighted that it “didn’t actually show results for 30 years because people were still smoking”, resulting in no decrease in cancers for 20 years. Healthcare developments, she insisted, happen far outside the parliamentary terms, which is why they prove so challenging to push through – but are all the more vital for their comparative ostensible lack of urgency, when pitted against more short-term solvable issues.

Ruth Jones praised the teamwork that underpins the NHS at every level and urged closer integration between hospitals, community care, and local authorities to reduce pressure on services. However, she feels, health and social care systems must increasingly operate together if hospital backlogs and patient flow are going to be better handled.

With heightened focus on Wales, Jones expressed how the country faces the challenges of an older, sicker population and the emigration of younger generations, leading to a shortage of care staff. She explained how “we need young people, at the very basic level to look after our older people”.

Although the Welsh Government has legislated Wales as a country of sanctuary, welcoming skilled immigrants to fill vacancies, particularly in the NHS, delays in processing legislative papers for refugees and asylum seekers prevent them from working. Such issues exacerbate staffing shortages and negatively impact both their and patients’ well-being.

“We need young people, at the very basic level to look after our older people” ~ Ruth Jones MP

Skills, Migration and the Welsh Workforce

Ruth Jones’ positive, welcoming stance on immigration is clear, albeit, self-admittedly, “going against the rhetoric that’s out there in terms of England in quite a strong way”. Jones describes how her mother, recently in hospital, was treated by a “brilliant” network of staff whose “vast majority were from overseas”: “they were non-white, from overseas, and they were absolutely superb”.

“Well, I’m not being funny, you’ve been retired 20 years. They’re not taking your job, they are filling a vacancy which is not your job and they don’t want your job because to be honest, they’re very highly qualified as a lawyer, a barrister, whatever. They want to come in and give to the country that has taken them in’’ ~ Ruth Jones MP

Jones expressed her frustration, empathising with foreign workers who struggle to attain their right to remain and legislative papers dealt with – “during that time, you’re not working, you’re existing on a pittance, you’re dealing with your family, you’ve got nothing. It’s bad for your mental health, it’s bad for your physical health, it’s bad for your family”.

She emphasised how the Government should prioritise getting such people into work: we can do that, “it’s not that difficult” – but political, social pressures and red-tape are debarring Labour from swifter action.

“We need to ensure that working people have hope, because you can have all the stability and all the talk about growth, but if you haven’t got hope, then people just do lose heart” ~ Ruth Jones MP

On the sorts of arguments espoused by right wing spokespeople such as Robert Jenrick and Nigel Farage, she is scathing and blunt: “somebody said, in my constituency, “oh, they’re coming, they’re taking my job”. And I said, “Well, I’m not being funny, you’ve been retired 20 years. They’re not taking your job, they are filling a vacancy which is not your job and they don’t want your job because to be honest, they’re very highly qualified as a lawyer, a barrister, whatever. They want to come in and give to the country that has taken them in””.

Jones wants to dismantle the “right wing rhetoric which says they’re freeloaders, they’re coming in to get the benefit”. They don’t want the benefit, she argues; “they want to give back”. She describes the result of proper integration as a powerful tool for enhancing the community: they become a family, paying taxes, being involved in the community: “So do you know what? I think we should welcome them with open arms”.

‘I think we should welcome them with open arms’ ~ Ruth Jones MP

Energy Transition and Economic Growth in Wales

Ruth Jones emphasises how Wales is well-positioned to capitalize on natural energy resources due to its geography: “we’ve got wind, we’ve got solar and we’ve also got tidal”. She expressed her keenness to establish a reliable and secure energy system independent of external geopolitical influences.

Jones also set out the key challenges for renewable energy in Wales, which will increasingly include connecting renewable sources to the national electricity grid, especially in mid-Wales, and developing battery storage solutions to capture and release energy as needed.

She celebrated Newport’s innovative clean energy transformation: a city boasting the largest semiconductor cluster in the UK, as well as multiple data centers, which are power-hungry and require robust renewable energy infrastructure.

Future Priorities

Ruth Jones explained the Government’s heavy emphasis on ‘growth and stability’, but has a more human message to deliver: ‘But what we do need to do is ensure that working people have hope, because you can have all the stability and all the talk about growth, but if you haven’t got hope, then people just do lose heart’.

She continued, expanding on the Government’s focus on apprenticeships, training and increased employment levels: ‘Jobs, jobs, jobs, yes, of course, but not just jobs at any cost. We want decent jobs which are well paid’.

And permanence: Jones believes in creating jobs for good, and for the long term – jobs still existent for the next half century – also something that she feels will prove crucial for communities.

‘Jobs, jobs, jobs, yes, of course, but not just jobs at any cost. We want decent jobs which are well paid’ ~ Ruth Jones MP

Ruth Jones’ overarching values rest on a celebration of both small-scale community togetherness, and cooperation on a national level; in short, unity. It is a value which has guided her from before her political journey even began, when she became aware of the power of a healthy and supportive hospital team. And it is a value which, in today’s climate of social entropy, is more apt than ever.

Ruth Jones’ words on immigration were refreshingly honest; Labour continue to remain circumspect about their rhetoric on the issue given the UK’s immense public backlash, but Jones’ support of an ‘open-armed welcome’ is a bold gambit, promising and hoping for deeper community integration for both Brits, and people from around the world.