The letter reads as a stark warning about the UK’s defence position. Healey lays out a record of achievements under the Government: increased defence spending, strengthened alliances, major export deals, and the publication of a Strategic Defence Review. Yet the tone is brutal when addressing funding.

At the heart of the disagreement is the long-delayed Defence Investment Plan (DIP). Healey argues that the financial settlement agreed by the Treasury “falls short of what is required for defence and the country at this dangerous time.” He says funding increases are, in his view, backloaded, while immediate operational pressures demand urgent investment.

His conclusion is that by remaining in post he would have to accept decisions that could reduce military readiness and “increase the risk to personnel on operations.”

Mounting Pressure on the Prime Minister

The timing of the resignation is politically challenging for the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister is preparing to attend the G7 summit on Monday, where he is expected to meet with US President, Donald Trump. Such meetings typically require a strong and stable domestic footing, particularly on defence and international security. Starmer was already under pressure on defence spending prior to the resignation. Therefore, expect Trump to humiliate the Prime Minister following Healey’s departure over defence spending.

The resignation also feeds into a broader narrative of strain within government and the Parliamentary Labour Party. While the letter is respectful and measured, its content signals a significant policy divide at the top of government – specifically between defence priorities and Treasury constraints.

Politically, the immediate question is not only about defence policy, but about leadership stability. Although there is no indication of an imminent Cabinet move against the Prime Minister, the absence of certain key figures in Westminster may delay any collective response. Nonetheless, the symbolic damage is immediate.

Defence Spending: The Core Fault Line

Healey’s resignation centres on a fundamental disagreement over defence spending. The former Defence Secretary makes clear that he supports a faster and more ambitious funding increase, including hitting 3% of GDP by 2030.

By contrast, the current plan outlined in his letter would see spending rise more slowly, reaching around 2.68% by 2030 – barely above levels already projected. To Healey, this is insufficient given the scale of global threats.

He explicitly references intelligence assessments suggesting a potential Russian attack on NATO “as soon as 2030”. This framing elevates the dispute beyond routine budgetary wrangling, positioning it as an urgent matter of national security.

The letter also highlights expanding UK commitments, from Middle Eastern operations to leadership roles in NATO missions, and increased involvement in Ukraine. In this context, Healey argues that underfunding risks undermining both operational capability and international credibility.

Beyond domestic politics, the resignation could have implications for the UK’s international status. Healey emphasises the importance of alliances and the UK’s leadership role within NATO. His departure raises questions about continuity in defence leadership at a time of heightened global tension.

There are also immediate practical uncertainties. A planned visit to a drone facility, expected to be attended by the Prime Minister alongside John Healey and Al Cairns, now comes into question. With Healey no longer in post, it is unclear whether the visit will proceed in its original form, be reshaped, or be postponed altogether.

Such visits are typically designed to showcase defence innovation and government commitment to military capability. Any disruption risks reinforcing perceptions of instability at the top of defence policymaking.

The Prime Minister now faces a politically dangerous balancing act. On one hand, maintaining fiscal discipline remains central to the Government’s economic strategy. On the other, Healey’s resignation amplifies calls for increased defence spending at a time of rising geopolitical risk.

In his closing remarks, Healey offers continued support for the Government, suggesting the split is one of policy rather than personal rupture. However, the public nature of his critique ensures the issue will remain at the forefront of political debate. As Starmer heads to the G7 summit, he does so under intensified scrutiny – not only from international partners, but from within his own party and government.

Healey’s departure has transformed what might have been a managed policy disagreement into a significant political crisis – one that could bring down a Prime Minister.

Photo Credit: Simon Dawson, No.10 Downing Street

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

You can buy your copy here.

Ben Howlett

Chamber UK CEO

What The King’s historic address signals for transatlantic ties

King Charles III’s address to the US Congress on Tuesday was historic, warmly received and subtle on policy. Only the second British monarch ever to speak before lawmakers on Capitol Hill, The King used the occasion not merely to celebrate shared history, but to send carefully calibrated signals about the future direction of the UK-US relationship at a moment of global uncertainty.

For British businesses and policymakers alike, the speech should be carefully analysed. Beneath the traditional ceremonial language and humour lay a clear message from the UK Head of State and leader of the Commonwealth – the “special relationship” remains strong, but it cannot be taken for granted.

Continuity, not rupture, at the heart of the alliance

At its core, The King’s speech sought to reassure those concerned of a widening split in UK-US relations. By describing the historic partnership as “more important today than it has ever been,” The King reinforced the idea that the relationship transcends any single government, leader or policy disagreement. A statement only The King could make. This matters at a time when political volatility on both sides of the Atlantic has prompted questions about the durability of long‑standing alliances.

For British firms operating in, trading with, or investing in the United States, the signal was clearly delivered; the institutional foundations of the relationship remain solid. Defence, intelligence sharing, financial cooperation and regulatory coordination continue to rest on decades of embedded trust. With domestic political challenges for both the UK Prime Minister and US President – The King’s address was designed to reassure that even with political challenges at home – the relationship remains strong.

The emphasis on history was not nostalgic window‑dressing. By framing four centuries of shared experience as the backdrop for future cooperation, The King underscored that the partnership is not simply transactional that endures a single political cycle, but more foundational to how each state defines itself and the relationship with their key ally.

Whilst this was King Charles’ first State Visit to the US, he has met the US President a number of times, including during Trump’s visit to the United Kingdom in 2019, when he was Prince of Wales.

A diplomatic nudge toward sustained US leadership

While deliberate and crafted , the speech also contained unmistakable encouragement for the United States to maintain its global leadership role. The King warned against the temptation for nations to become “ever more inward‑looking”, a phrase widely read as a gentle appeal to Washington at a time of international strain following disagreements over Ukraine, Greenland, Iran – and more problematic, NATO itself.

Importantly, this appeal was made to Congress, not solely to the White House. By addressing legislators directly, King Charles highlighted the central role Congress plays in trade, defence funding, alliance commitments and long‑term policy direction.

For the UK, this reflects a strategic priority for His Majesty’s Government: ensuring that American engagement with allies remains anchored not just in executive action, but in bipartisan institutional support. Stability matters for markets, supply chains and investment decisions – and the UK is positioning itself as a voice for continuity rather than disruption.

Security cooperation as the non‑negotiable core

If any area of the relationship was presented as beyond doubt, it was security. The King’s firm support and advocacy for NATO, explicit backing for Ukraine, and praise for initiatives such as AUKUS reinforce that defence cooperation remains the bedrock of the transatlantic partnership.

For business leaders, this has indirect but significant implications. Security alignment underpins everything from energy infrastructure protection to technology collaboration, and shipping routes. The affirmation that these ties are long‑term and insulated from day‑to‑day political tension should be reassuring for sectors exposed to geopolitical risk.

The King conceded disagreements may arise, but he was clear that the architecture of shared defence is not up for renegotiation.

Democratic values as commercial foundations

One of the most discussed aspects of the speech was The King’s repeated references to constitutional principles, checks and balances, and the rule of law. While framed historically – through references to Magna Carta and Abraham Lincoln – the implication was unmistakably relevant for today.

For investors and businesses, democratic reliability is not a political concept relegated to the A-level textbook. Legal predictability, independent institutions, and stable regulatory environments are central to commercial confidence. By placing these values at the heart of the bilateral relationship, The King reaffirmed what many in the business community already know to be a reality – trust between nations is inseparable from trust in their systems.

With democracy under threat around the world (some would argue rightly in the HJ and US too), the UK sees shared democratic norms not as optional, but as foundational to long‑term partnership.

Moral awareness without political overreach

The King’s brief reference to supporting victims of abuse, widely interpreted as an acknowledgment of sensitive debates, illustrated another recurring theme of the address: empathy and restraint.

Rather than engaging in political controversy, the speech demonstrated how the Uk intends to navigate difficult terrain with their closest ally – acknowledging concerns, expressing shared values, but avoiding actions that could undermine legal processes or diplomatic stability.

What this means for UK economic interests

Taken together, the speech sends a signal to companies operating across the Atlantic. The US-UK relationship is not in crisis, but it is evolving amid global shifts. The UK is positioning itself as a steady, reliable partner – one that values open markets, shared security, and institutional continuity.

For British business, the implication should be cautiously positive. Although a difficult pill to swallow for the politically interested – the US and the UK are stuck with the same leader (notwithstanding their impotence from forthcoming local elections and midterms) for the foreseeable. One thing that Trump and Starmer have in common is the inability of their enemies to join opposition blocks together and they are therefore likely to limp on.

Against this background, therefore, expect continued cooperation, deep ties in defence and technology, and a shared interest in predictable, rules‑based systems. At the same time, The King’s message is that engagement matters – alliances, like markets, require active stewardship.

The King’s speech was a reminder that the strength of the UK-US relationship lies both in history and deliberate choices about the future.

“Can We Be Great Again?”

Opening with humorous anecdotes, Hunt recalled his time as Foreign Secretary, describing the grandeur of the Foreign Office and the question every new occupant asks: “Is this just an imperial delusion, or are we actually this amazing, strong, powerful, great country?”

His new book, he explained, was written to answer that question. It examines seven major global challenges – from democracy and climate change to migration and artificial intelligence – and assesses Britain’s influence in addressing them.

“In every single case, out of 193 countries in the United Nations, we were always in the top ten most influential nations – often in the top five.”

Sir Jeremy Hunt

That, Hunt suggested, is a truth the British often forget. Despite national pessimism, he said, the country still has profound global clout and strong fundamentals. The challenge is to turn that potential into renewed confidence.

Economic Strength and Political Power

Hunt linked global influence directly to economic performance. Drawing on forecasts from the Centre for Economics and Business Research, he noted that the UK is projected to remain the world’s sixth-largest economy in 2039 – behind only the United States, China, India, Japan and Germany.

“Even with all the doom and gloom, we’ll still be number six. We have the third-largest technology sector in the world. We should be a little more optimistic than the general mood suggests.”

Yet, he warned, economic strength and political clout are inseparable. Citing China’s rise as an economic superpower achieved “without firing a shot”, Hunt argued that Britain’s global influence depends on rebuilding fiscal discipline at home. He lamented the absence of a clear plan to reduce national debt which now costs every household nearly £4,000 a year in interest payments, compared to 800 euros for every German household.

His prescription was straightforward: never allow public spending to grow faster than the economy. “That’s how debt spirals,” he said. “We’ve been increasing welfare spending faster than national growth – and that is simply unsustainable.”

Confidence, Not Isolation

Hunt urged Conservatives and the wider country to resist self-doubt and insularity. Britain, he said, remains admired abroad for its integrity and global outlook, even as it indulges in national self-criticism at home.

“We are the global leader in washing our dirty linen in public,” he joked. “But we forget that other countries have challenges too.”

The book, he stressed, was not jingoistic. “This isn’t about claiming we’re better than anyone else,” he said. “It’s about recognising that the world is dangerous, and underestimating ourselves is the worst possible response.”

Hunt called for renewed co-operation with allies who share Britain’s democratic values: “The important thing is not to pull up the drawbridge but to roll up our sleeves and work with those who share our worldview.”

Rebuilding Relations with Europe

In discussion with Forum members, Hunt praised the Labour Government’s pragmatic diplomacy in improving relations with the European Union. This was a point that received wide appreciation from the audience. “Foreign policy may be where Keir Starmer’s greatest success lies,” he observed. “He’s managed to make friends with both Donald Trump and the EU – no small feat.”

Hunt argued that, after the “messy divorce” of Brexit, the war in Ukraine had helped both sides mature. The UK’s leadership in European security, he said, had “shown that we are good Europeans”. Though frustrated by new EU barriers to British participation in defence projects, he judged that relations were “broadly moving in the right direction”.

The US and Britain’s Global Standing

On the “special relationship”, Hunt adopted a pragmatic view. “Diplomacy is a cold-hearted, transactional business,” he said. The US values the UK because it can rely on us as a military partner prepared to project force overseas.

He cited former President Trump’s remark that “Britain would come to America’s aid if it were attacked” as an important compliment.

Around the world, Hunt added, Britain continues to command respect for its role in creating the post-war international order. “People look to us, even more so when America appears unpredictable,” he said.

Restoring the Centre Ground

Asked whether the Conservative Party could return to the centre, Hunt gave a candid assessment. Moderate parties globally, he observed, have been losing elections. “We need to look in the mirror,” he said. “People must see that elected politicians can actually solve problems faster and better than we did in office.”

While upholding moderate values – strong public services, climate responsibility and international development – Hunt said the party must also show toughness and radicalism in tackling challenges like illegal migration. “We must be both compassionate and effective,” he said.

Migration, Openness and Britain’s Future

Hunt described illegal migration as the issue most undermining Britain’s traditional openness. “For centuries, this country has thrived by welcoming the brightest and best,” he said. “A third of our Nobel Prize winners were born abroad.”

But he warned that public trust in that openness is “fraying”, and mainstream parties must restore confidence by proving they can control borders. Only then could Britain remain open to talent, students and investment.

“If we want to protect the virtue that made us great, we must also show that we can control who comes here.”

Sir Jeremy Hunt

He called for reform of the European Convention on Human Rights if necessary and urged co-operation with France and the EU on practical solutions, similar to the EU–Turkey agreement that curbed crossings in 2016.

China, Democracy and Dialogue

Hunt reflected on his personal connection to China and the global contest between democracy and autocracy. “Xi Jinping would say autocracies are better because they make long-term decisions,” he said. “That’s the argument we must defeat.”

He advocated a twin-track approach: “We need both strength and dialogue.” Britain, he argued, must engage China to prevent conflict and address shared challenges like climate change and bioethics. “There’s no solution to global warming without China,” he noted. “And we must work with them to set limits on technologies such as gene editing.”

Europe’s Security and Economic Challenge

On European defence, Hunt said leaders had so far acted wisely – increasing military spending and avoiding trade wars with the US. However, he warned that Europe’s dependency on America stems from economic stagnation.

“If we want to defend ourselves without cutting public services, we must understand why Asia and North America grow faster than we do – and act on it.”

He urged both Britain and the EU to revive long-stalled reforms in planning, welfare and productivity.

On the Next Budget

Asked what he would do as Chancellor today, Hunt sympathised with Rachel Reeves but warned against further tax rises. “Higher taxes will simply reduce economic growth,” he said. Instead, he called for major welfare reform, a productivity overhaul in the NHS, and a renewed focus on technical education for non-graduates.

He concluded with characteristic clarity, “We know what to do – it’s about having the courage to do it.”

“A Dangerous World Needs Britain”

Closing the evening, CEF chair, Stephen Hammond praised Hunt for reaffirming core Conservative values – fiscal responsibility, fairness, compassion and international co-operation.

Hunt’s central message resonated with the audience; Britain remains capable of greatness if it combines economic discipline with moral confidence and works alongside allies who share its democratic ideals.

“This is not the moment to retreat,” Hunt said. “It’s the moment to remember who we are – and what we can do when we act with our friends to make the world safer and freer.”

To find out more about Sir Jeremy Hunt’s book, visit Swift Press.

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. 

Ben Howlett

Chief Executive, Curia

Ahead of her Leader’s speech to Conservative Party Conference, is Kemi Badenoch’s bid to reinvent the Conservatives faltering, leaving the party adrift, divided, and struggling for relevance?

If the images from Manchester this week are anything to go by, the Conservative Party’s attempt at reinvention is sputtering. Shadow Chancellor, Sir Mel Stride delivered his speech in a half-empty auditorium, an apt visual metaphor for a party struggling to sustain public attention and political relevance. Meanwhile, Kemi Badenoch’s leadership – born from bold promises of renewal – now looks increasingly hollow. The public seems to be losing patience with a semi-skimmed right-wing “version 2.0”, and is gravitating instead towards a full-fat opposition in Reform.

The optics of emptiness

Conferences are theatre. They are not just policy forums but demonstrations of vitality, energy, and momentum. A sparse hall this morning wasn’t just bad optics – it was a sign. The fewer the faces, the starker the message: the Conservatives are no longer a crowd-drawing force. The Guardian put it bluntly: “Humiliation upon humiliation for the Melster in front of half-full Tory crowd.”

This is not a trivial matter for party morale or media narrative. Empty seats amplify every stumble in speech, every pause, every awkward silence. Already, the contrast between past, bustling Tory conferences and this year’s subdued affair underscores the party’s struggle to remain relevant.

It is not just about numbers – because behind each chair is a person whose absence or absence of enthusiasm signals doubt, disengagement or desertion.

Badenoch: Bold claims, soft execution

Just days ago, Kemi Badenoch opened her leadership with contrition – a mea culpa, even: “We failed to bring numbers down and stop the boats”. Badenoch’s admission speaks the language of accountability and concession, something rare in modern politics. But it wrestles with a deeper crisis: her party is failing to persuade. Ambition alone is no substitute for coherence.

Badenoch has leant heavily on high-stakes proposals: withdrawing from the ECHR, repealing the Climate Change Act, promising tough immigration pledges. But boldness without credibility feels like theatre without weight. Critics have begun to argue she is trying to out-Reform Reform – that in chasing Nigel Farage’s supporters, she is alienating her moderate base. Former cabinet ministers warn that there may not be room in British politics for two populist right parties.

With Liberal Democrats coming second or snapping at the heels of the Party in its southern ‘heartlands’ – although it is hard to still define them as such given horrific local election results for the party – the Conservative Party’s lurch to the right is baffling.

The internal party response is telling: in a survey of Tory members, 50% say she should not lead the party into the next election. The conference, then, is as much a test of her legitimacy as a platform for her agenda.

Relevance in the era of full-fat opposition

What the Conservatives now lack is magnetism. Oppositions draw people: sceptics, activists, the disillusioned. They offer contrast. But the Tories seem a semi-skimmed alternative to Labour, not a full-cream opposition. At a time when the public is demanding sharper divides and clearer choices, a middle path looks bland. The hunger is not for another centre-right variant but for a bold counterpoint to what they see as Labour’s hegemony.

Reform UK looms as the hard-right disruptor, and Badenoch’s strategy seems reactive: mirror their tone and match their rhetoric, but without the same clarity or energy. The danger is that in trying to occupy the same rhetorical ground, the Conservatives will be judged as lesser, watered-down versions of the same thing.

The Conservatives’ current reinvention strategy is both misguided and falling short: they need to reinvent as credible, coherent and distinct, not as “more extreme”.

Why Badenoch is failing (so far)

The Conservative Party’s failure to cut through can be summarised in five key ways:

1. Lack of narrative coherence
   You cannot lead by declaration alone. Leadership demands that policies hang together – internally consistent, publicly plausible. The policy catalogue feels scattershot and often lacking in groundwork. Voters sniff this out.

2. Credibility gap
   Badenoch must rebuild trust after 14 years of shifting promises, internal chaos, and policy failures. She inherited more than a weak electoral position – she inherited cynicism. Bold proposals may ring hollow if they appear symbolic rather than operational.

3. Strategic confusion over Reform UK
   Is Reform a threat to be outflanked, absorbed, battled, or ignored? Badenoch’s approach seems to hedge on all angles. This lack of clear posture allows Reform to lead the narrative.

4. Internal discontent
   Her own party remains unconvinced. The polling data revealing that half of Tories would prefer a different leader before the next election is existential.

5. A weakening base and demographic challenge
   The Conservative base is ageing; younger voters are drifting left or to populist alternatives. Badenoch does not yet appear to have a compelling narrative to bridge that divide.

The coming test: do they become relevant or relic?

If this conference is a symbol, then the symbol is trouble. Badenoch will have to manage the questions no one wants to ask: What is the distinct, compelling vision the Tories are offering? Why should disillusioned voters stay? Can she re-energise a fractured base without alienating moderate wings?

If she fails to arrest the drift toward irrelevance, then her “renewal” will be remembered not as a rebirth but as a swansong. The public is reaching for full-fat opposition – bold, coherent, decisive – and so far, the Conservatives appear the substitute. That’s a dangerous place for a mainstream party to occupy.

All eyes are on the Conservative Party Leader for Wednesday’s Leader’s speech – will anyone listen?

The Prime Minister arrived in Liverpool facing pressure to define his premiership. Labour may be in government, but a clear sense of what drives this Prime Minister – beyond competence and stability – has often eluded supporters and critics alike. His conference speech was therefore a test of clarity and conviction, and by most accounts it was one he passed with skill.

The delivery was measured but also punchier than his earlier set pieces. There were moments of genuine passion when he spoke about unity, fairness and the importance of growth that reaches all communities. He framed the choice facing the country in stark terms:

“Britain stands at a fork in the road. We can choose decency. Or we can choose division. Renewal or decline.”

This was not just a rhetoric, it was the moral heart of the speech. An attempt to define his government in contrast to populism and pessimism.

Growth as renewal

The centrepiece of Starmer’s address was economic renewal. He made the case that growth is not an abstract statistic but something that touches the daily lives of citizens – whether a secure payslip, the ability to buy small comforts, or the reassurance that bills can be paid.

“Growth is the pound in your pocket…the peace of mind that comes from economic security.”

The argument was simple but significant. The Labour Party is positioning itself not as a movement promising radical redistribution, but as a government that will create the conditions for steady prosperity across the country. Starmer rejected the idea that growth can only come from the financial sector or London, speaking instead of growth “from the grassroots.” This reflects a shift away from Labour’s past reliance on fiscal transfers, and towards a belief in spreading opportunity through regional development, skills, and investment.

It was also a coded reminder that there will be no unfunded giveaways. The emphasis on fiscal discipline was deliberate: tough decisions are coming, and Starmer wanted members to hear this from him directly.

Hard choices ahead

One of the most notable aspects of the speech was his candour about the pain of governing. Starmer admitted that the road to renewal will involve unpopular and sometimes uncomfortable decisions. This was a subtle warning to those in the party who might push for expansive spending commitments or sweeping reforms without clear funding.

He cast himself as a leader prepared to make choices “firm and fair,” insisting that governing is not about easy promises but about responsibility.

“The most important aspect of national renewal is how you grow an economy, not just how much, but who and where benefits.”

It was a carefully pitched message: realistic enough to prepare the party for constraint, yet optimistic enough to offer the promise of long-term progress.

Borders and sovereignty

The most surprising section came on immigration and sovereignty. Starmer acknowledged that the system requires reform and that Britain may need to question some of the assumptions and legal constraints of past decades. For many in the hall this was uncomfortable territory, yet it demonstrated his determination not to cede the issue to Reform UK or the Conservatives.

It was also a political calculation. With Reform UK polling stubbornly high, Starmer clearly wanted to blunt their appeal by showing Labour as pragmatic and tough on border control, while still upholding fairness and respect for those who contribute to the country.

A moral framing

What lifted the speech beyond policy detail was its moral framing. Starmer returned repeatedly to the idea that politics is about values: decency, fairness, and the belief that the country can come together. This was his answer to cynicism about whether Labour has a story to tell.

“No matter how many people tell me it cannot be done, I believe Britain can come together.”

This line resonated with delegates because it captured the ambition of government not just to manage decline but to renew national life. The invocation of the post-war Labour government was deliberate, positioning today’s challenges in the context of historic responsibility.

Did it answer the question?

For those in the hall, the speech largely succeeded. Delegates responded warmly, members heard more detail than in previous addresses, and the Prime Minister’s values came through more clearly. Yet there remains a lingering question. Are we truly more aware of what this Prime Minister stands for than we were at the start of the conference?

The speech positioned himself as the champion of decency versus division, renewal versus decline. It offered important markers on growth, fiscal discipline, and immigration. But it left some ambiguity about the deeper vision of Labour in power. Is this a government of cautious stability, or of transformative ambition?

Final thought: a strong step, but unfinished business

Sir Keir Starmer delivered a strong and well-judged conference speech. It reassured his party, provided voters with a sense of direction, and positioned Labour against the divisive politics of Reform UK. It showed him as a leader with values rooted in decency and fairness, and a pragmatist prepared to take tough decisions.

Yet it also highlighted the challenge that will continue to confront him. Values alone will not carry a government. Policy choices, delivery on the ground and a clear vision of the future will determine whether Labour’s promise of renewal can be sustained.

This speech was a significant step forward, but the task of defining Starmer’s premiership is far from complete.

Resident doctors have already set the tone, refusing to be placated by the pay uplift offered by Health and Care Secretary, Wes Streeting. The uncomfortable truth is that no government – Labour or Conservative – will succeed in resolving industrial action in the NHS until it delivers on the promises of the NHS Long-Term Workforce Plan and future workforce strategy due for Autumn publication.

The warning signs were always there. From the moment Streeting granted the resident doctors a pay increase, it was clear that goodwill alone would not be enough. Working conditions, career development, leadership culture, and even basic safety are central to what health workers want to see change. And on those fronts, things have scarcely moved.

Patient safety must be placed front and centre in this debate. Safe staffing is not a bonus – it is the essential condition for delivering care that protects patients and avoids harm. Resident doctors and nurses are not just fighting for themselves; they are advocating for the right to practise their clinical judgement in environments that are properly resourced, where they can be safety-critical professionals rather than stretched responders in crisis conditions. Without adequate staffing, the system cannot function safely – and everyone, including patients, suffer.

The Pay Myth: Why Uplifts Aren’t Enough

The recent pay rejection by nurses highlights a critical misunderstanding by political leaders.

Ministers appear to believe that numbers on a payslip can address deep structural dysfunction – a notion not borne out by evidence or experience. While inflation-linked uplifts matter, they do not repair the culture of burnout, bullying, and unsustainable rotas.

The previous Government’s workforce plan itself, published last year, promised to grow the NHS workforce by hundreds of thousands. But warm words have not translated into visible change. Staff on the ground still report toxic working environments, understaffing, outdated IT systems, and senior leadership that is distant at best and obstructive at worst.

Nurses and doctors are not demanding luxury. They are asking for functional workplaces, support from colleagues and management, and systems that allow them to do the job they trained for. These are not unrealistic expectations and could indeed avert some of the calls for their inflation busting pay increases. Could these be desperate cries for help from an undervalued workforce. Changes are fundamental to safety and dignity at work.

Workforce Exodus: A Crisis of Culture, Not Just Capacity

Health Foundation analysis suggests that retention, not recruitment, is the Achilles’ heel of the NHS. Thousands of staff are leaving not because they want higher pay, but because they are demoralised, exhausted, and unsupported.

Nurses surveyed by the Royal College of Nursing have repeatedly cited unsafe staffing levels, systemic racism, and relentless pressure. There is little doubt that these are all leading reasons for rejecting the Government’s pay deal. The results of the union’s online survey of 345,000 members in England, Wales, and Scotland, which is due later this week, will show a “clear” rejection of the award citing several of these issues. “What good is an extra 5%,” one nurse asked, “if you’re on a ward where three people are doing the work of seven?”

This is a crisis of culture. And culture is shaped by leadership. Yet management accountability remains the least discussed and least reformed area of NHS strategy. Until ministers confront the reality of daily working life for NHS staff, industrial action will continue – and it will grow in intensity.

Tackling Management Accountability, Bullying, and Racism Head-on

Former Labour Health Minister, Professor Ann Keen, who led the last comprehensive NHS workforce review for Gordon Brown, has issued a stark warning about the state of NHS workforce culture: “Accountability of managers, bullying, and racism all need to be tackled head-on if we’re serious about retaining the workforce. These three areas are so fundamental – without change, we cannot build the open culture needed to address harm or improve patient safety.”

She warned “sadly, things are getting worse, and there is no place for these behaviours in a modern workforce.”

Professor Keen’s words echo those of frontline staff and unions. Although Streeting has pledged to do more on NHS management accountability, the NHS frontline is yet to receive full guidance on what is outlined in the workforce plan. Unless this changes, the NHS risks losing its most experienced and dedicated professionals – not to competitors, but to burnout.

Too often, health workforce policy has been reduced to short-term fixes and rhetorical commitments. Ministers pledge increases. The Department of Health and Care rolls out new taskforces. Yet the day-to-day reality for NHS workers remains stagnant. Until working conditions fundamentally improve – with real protections from bullying, meaningful professional development, and fully staffed rotas – no amount of pay negotiation will stabilise the system.

We are in danger of repeating the same mistakes: over-reliance on overseas staff, failure to invest in mid-career progression, and top-down leadership structures that breed resentment rather than trust.

The NHS workforce plan must not be left on the shelf. It must be launched after the summer, implemented fully, and transparently, with timelines, local oversight, and independent scrutiny.

What Needs to Happen Now

A serious strategy to end NHS strikes must do three things:

1. Deliver on the workforce plan – with visible progress on staffing levels, skills, and pay transparency.
2. Fix workplace culture – addressing racism, harassment, and mismanagement with zero tolerance.
3. Empower local leadership – ensuring Boards and Trust executives are held to account for retention and staff wellbeing, not just performance targets.

These are not radical ideas. They are practical, overdue interventions to rebuild a broken relationship between Government and NHS professionals.

“We must stop asking staff to give more than they have left to give.”

Curia’s Role in Supporting Solutions

Later this year, Curia’s Health, Care, and Life Sciences Research Group will launch a national inquiry into the NHS workforce challenge. This programme will explore:

• The impact of current working conditions on staff retention
• Leadership culture and accountability across NHS Trusts
• New models of workforce planning and flexible deployment
• Barriers to implementing the Long-Term Workforce Plan

Drawing on roundtables, frontline surveys, and expert panels, the group will publish practical recommendations to inform policymakers and NHS leaders. It is time for evidence, not excuses, to shape the future of NHS employment.

For more information on Curia memberships, please contact Partnerships Director, Ben M^cDermott at ben.mcdermott@chamberuk.com. 

Delivered a day after the Spending Review and ahead of the publication of the Government’s Ten-Year Plan for Health, Wes Streeting used the moment to speak directly to the health and care system – eschewing the usual political soundbites for what he called a “health geek-out”. But this was no dry policy seminar. The speech delivered to a packed auditorium at the NHS Confed Expo conference was a compelling combination of critique, commitment, and challenge.

Five Principles, One System Reset

At the heart of the address were five core principles forming the backbone of the Government’s proposed new NHS operating model:

1. Clarity over chaos: With fewer nationally mandated targets, the plan promises a simplification of expectations – making clear the role of the centre, NHS regions, and Integrated Care Boards (ICBs). The aim is strategic commissioning and local delivery, not bureaucratic sprawl.
2. Consequences for performance: Wes Streeting called for the reinvigoration of Foundation Trusts – reintroducing earned autonomy for high performers and consequences for persistent failure, including the possibility of provider administration. This signals a shift towards a more accountable, decentralised performance culture, especially focused on underserved communities.
3. Leadership that delivers: New incentives will tie leadership pay to performance, while also encouraging system leadership beyond traditional organisational boundaries. Local government will be brought into decision-making – especially for neighbourhood health services.
4. Money tied to outcomes: Financial flows will be reshaped to reward prevention and outcomes rather than activity alone. This reflects a deeper shift from reactive care towards population health and integrated services.
5. Patient-centred power shift: In perhaps the most ambitious aim, Wes Streeting promised radical devolution to patients, echoing Nye Bevan’s pledge to give patients a “megaphone”. The reforms seek to put user experience, transparency, and control at the heart of the system.

A Candid Diagnosis of Systemic Failure

Wes Streeting didn’t shy away from difficult truths. He acknowledged the demoralisation of NHS leaders, the bureaucratic drag of top-down control, and the postcode lottery of care quality – particularly in deprived areas. His critique of the NHS’s “Soviet-style statism” was as striking as it was politically bold. While previous governments have talked about empowering the frontline, few have promised to abolish NHS England, halve the centre’s headcount, and strip away layers of micromanagement.

Wes Streeting was clear that the NHS status quo is indefensible, and reform is not only necessary – it’s urgent. Importantly, he insisted the reforms will be evolutionary, not a return to disruptive structural overhauls.

Optimism with Teeth: Reform Meets Realism

The speech struck a rare balance in health policy: it was optimistic without being naïve. Wes Streeting’s praise of recent progress – cutting the waiting list in April for the first time in 17 years, improvements in GP hiring, and record elective appointments – was tempered with realism about the work ahead.

His assertion that the NHS needs both investment and reform echoed a long-held truth in health policy, but one that is rarely followed through with credible delivery plans. And while £29 billion extra by 2028 is welcome, Streeting’s emphasis was on how that money is spent – not simply how much.

Reactions and Risks

Reception among system leaders appeared warm. The speech was rich in both systems thinking and emotional intelligence – Wes Streeting’s remarks on social determinants of health, public trust, and cross-government responsibilities placed health policy firmly in its broader context.

However, the scale of the proposed change is vast. Aligning financial incentives, reconfiguring services, elevating leadership standards, and meaningfully devolving to patients will all require political capital, sustained focus, and trust between ministers and NHS leaders – something that has historically proven fragile.

The promise of no top-down reorganisation will be reassuring, but some structural shifts – such as eliminating NHS England – could still bring disruption.

Final Thought: A Speech That Sets the Standard

Wes Streeting’s speech was a detailed, strategic articulation of an overdue operating philosophy for the NHS. It laid down a challenge to the system – and to his own department – to break from old habits and deliver real change.

If the forthcoming Ten-Year Plan builds on the five principles outlined, and if delivery follows rhetoric, this could mark the beginning of a new settlement for health and care in England: one where clarity, accountability, and patient power replace command-and-control and unearned autonomy.

Photo: Health and Care Secretary, Wes Streeting met innovators at the very popular @ConfedExpo Health Innovation Network stand with Chair @richarddstubbs – including, strolll, which is reinventing rehab for the NHS using augmented reality (AR) glasses. Health Innovation Network

We are delighted to announce the merger of News Hub Group, including Politics UK, Politics Global, Politics US, and Chamber UK online and print journal, forming a major new body: Politics News Group.

Together, Politics News Group will reach a combined audience of approximately 500,000 policymakers, stakeholders, and engaged citizens worldwide — amplifying the voices that shape our politics and ensuring informed dialogue at every level.

This exciting step forward brings together our shared commitment to high-quality political journalism, delivering breaking news and insights across the UK, global, and US landscapes through our digital-first platforms — Politics UK, Politics Global, and Politics US. These four current channels will remain operationally and editorially independent and will keep delivering the fastest political updates ahead of any major outlet — something their combined 380,000+ followers depend on.

Through this new relationship, we will grow our commitment to aspiring journalists by giving them their next step into political news, policy insight, and analysis.

Meanwhile, Chamber UK will continue to provide quarterly printed editions, offering in-depth analysis and thought leadership, and continuing to bring the council to the Commons through trusted long-form content.

We look forward to working in close partnership to inform, influence, and inspire through powerful storytelling and evidence-led reporting.

Over the course of the coming weeks, we will be making further announcements and launching the new website. To find out more register here. 

Ben Howlett
Chief Executive, Chamber UK Group

Bailey Nash-Gardner
Director, News Hub Group

Follow the Latest Updates

Subscribe to our newsletter.

• Bluesky
• X
• LinkedIn
• Instagram

Tim Flagg

Chief Executive, UKAI

Chief Executive of UKAI, the trade association for the AI economy in the UK, Tim Flagg explores the growing tension between the UK and US over the Digital Services Tax, its potential impact on trade following Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs, and the options facing the UK Government as it balances fair taxation with economic diplomacy.

Yesterday marks what President Trump has dubbed ‘Liberation Day’, with new tariffs looming this could have a significant effect on all UK businesses. At the heart of the negotiations is the UK’s Digital Services Tax (DST) and the question of whether the government should scrap it to avoid a trade war with the US.

It’s important to understand some of the context, so UKAI has summarised the history of the DST.

The Origins of the Digital Services Tax

The DST was introduced in April 2020 by the UK Government as a response to a long-standing problem: major global tech companies generating huge revenues in the UK while paying very little tax. The UK’s corporate tax system was outdated for the digital economy, allowing global tech firms to shift profits overseas and avoid significant UK tax contributions.

To close this gap, the UK introduced a 2% tax on certain digital revenues from large tech firms (those with over £500 million in global revenue and £25 million in UK revenue). The tax applies to search engines, social media platforms, and online marketplaces, but excludes digital retailers like Amazon’s product sales.

Since its introduction, the DST has been a significant revenue generator, collecting over £1 billion so far, exceeding early government expectations. (Source: DLA Piper)

Why is the Digital Services Tax Under Threat?

The main reason DST is under scrutiny is pressure from the United States. The Trump administration strongly opposes the tax, arguing that it disproportionately targets US companies. The US has previously threatened tariffs in retaliation and is now considering a new wave of trade measures on the so-called ‘Liberation Day’ that could harm UK exports. The UK government now faces a difficult choice:

1. Scrap the DST to ease US tensions and avoid trade restrictions.
2. Hold firm and risk economic retaliation but maintain a fairer tax system.

The UK originally promised to remove DST once a global tax framework was in place, but that framework led by the OECD has stalled.

The OECD Solution: Work in Progress

The OECD’s global tax deal, agreed in 2021, was designed to replace DSTs with a fairer, international tax system. It consists of two key pillars:

• Pillar One: Reallocating some taxing rights to countries where multinationals generate revenue, even if they have no physical presence there.
• Pillar Two: A 15% global minimum corporate tax to prevent profit shifting to tax havens.

While over 140 countries signed up, the US has not implemented Pillar One, delaying the system’s rollout. As a result, the UK and other countries (including France and Italy) have kept their DSTs in place, waiting for the US to act first.

What Happens Next?

The UK government has three main options:

1. Scrap DST immediately to avoid tariffs and improve US trade relations, but at the cost of losing a key revenue stream and undermining the UK’s ability to hold global tech companies to account in the future.
2. Delay the decision and negotiate with the US, hoping for concessions or a commitment to the OECD framework.
3. Hold firm on DST and risk economic retaliation, betting on international support for fairer digital taxation.

The most likely outcome is that the UK scraps DST in exchange for avoiding tariffs on key UK exports. The government may attempt to soften the move by pledging to replace DST with an alternative tax in the future or waiting for the OECD deal to progress.

Implications for the AI Sector

Many AI businesses in the UK rely on cloud services, digital advertising, and marketplaces provided by the large tech companies that currently pay DST. DST and any future tax could be passed onto to UK companies in terms of higher costs in the supply chain. If DST is removed, UK companies may benefit if the major tech platforms reinvest savings into UK operations and infrastructure, reducing costs and supporting UK businesses.

For businesses in AI and digital innovation, the key concern is whether the government will find an alternative way to ensure a level playing field, one that prevents large multinationals from dominating the market without making fair contributions to the UK economy.

UKAI will be tracking the news over the next few days and look forward to discussing this at our members lunch and fireside chat on Friday with Bruce Reed, President Biden’s Deputy Chief of Staff.

Stay tuned for a major announcement from the Chamber Group. All details with be revealed on Thursday April 3rd at 11am.

Want to be the First to Know?

Subscribe to our newsletter.

• Bluesky
• X
• LinkedIn
• Instagram

With the stroke of a pen, Trump announced a 10% tariff on UK imports, 20% on European Union goods, and a dramatic 25% tariff on all foreign-made vehicles, effective from midnight. These moves, part of what he dubbed a policy of “reciprocal tariffs”, signal a sharp escalation in trade tensions between the United States and its allies.

‘They Charge Us, We Charge Them’

Trump defended the tariffs with a large chart titled “Reciprocal Tariffs” – a visual comparing tariffs faced by US goods abroad versus those imposed by the United States. “They charge us, we charge them. How can anybody be upset?” he asked, singling out China, India, the EU, and even close allies such as Australia and Canada.

He continued, “India – very tough. Very, very tough,” referring to their high tariffs on American motorbikes and cars. He accused other nations of taking advantage of American generosity: “We take care of countries all over the world…it’s time the US took care of its own people.”

UK and Europe in the Crosshairs

The decision to target the UK and EU for ‘Liberation Day’ with higher tariffs marks a sharp break from the usual diplomatic tone between the longstanding allies. Trump claimed the UK has benefitted unfairly from US economic largesse, while the EU was described as “ripping us off”.

Though the tariffs may be popular with Trump’s domestic base, they risk a significant blow to transatlantic trade. British exporters, already navigating post-Brexit disruptions, now face a fresh hurdle in the American market. European leaders are likely to respond in kind, setting the stage for retaliatory tariffs and a potential trade war.

Economic Fallout and Global Shockwaves

Economists have been quick to warn of the dangers. According to research, a global tariff war could shrink the world economy by up to 5.5%, with the UK and Canada facing potential GDP losses of over 10% due to their reliance on imported industrial components.

Trump’s rhetoric may resonate with displaced American workers, but the broader consequences could include higher consumer prices, strained international relations, and a more fragmented global economy.

Farmers and Auto Workers Cheer, Allies Wince

At the heart of Trump’s pitch was a populist appeal to “the American worker”. “Jobs and local manufacturing will come roaring back,” he promised. A man named Brian, an auto worker from Michigan, praised Trump’s policies from the podium: “Plant after plant closed down. Now we’re finally going to see them come back.”

Trump also claimed the tariffs would protect US farmers and ranchers from foreign exploitation. “They don’t want our beef. They don’t want our rice,” he said, accusing Japan, South Korea, and China of blocking American agricultural exports. He also claimed Canada imposes 250% tariffs on US dairy products, further fuelling his case for retaliation.

Political Theatre or Strategic Shift?

Some critics argue the entire event was orchestrated as political theatre, timed for maximum visual and emotional impact. Jazz music played as guests took their seats for ‘Liberation Day’, administration officials mingled, and Trump arrived to “Hail to the Chief”. A thick binder – allegedly detailing the tariffs – was held aloft like a declaration of war.

But this is more than spectacle. Trump’s announcement reflects a broader ideological shift – one that challenges decades of global trade liberalisation in favour of nationalism and protectionism.

What Happens Next?

The UK Government has yet to respond formally, but retaliation seems likely. Whether through direct countermeasures or WTO appeals, both the UK and the EU now face the complex task of responding without escalating tensions further.

For now, Trump’s supporters are celebrating what he calls “the golden age of America”. But for Britain, Europe, and the global economic order, this Liberation Day may feel more like the start of a long and uncertain standoff.