The Secretary of State for Energy and Net Zero, Ed Miliband, has defended the Government’s £15 billion Warm Homes Plan, arguing that it forms a central part of the Government’s response to the cost-of-living crisis and the UK’s long-term energy security.

Speaking to Politics UK correspondent, Oliver Harries, Miliband outlined how the Government intends to bring down household energy bills while accelerating the transition to domestic clean energy.

Cutting Energy Bills

Miliband framed the Government’s energy policy primarily as a response to the pressures facing households across the UK.

“What I would say is that the cost-of-living crisis is the biggest issue facing the country and we want to do the right thing for the country,” he said.

The Energy Secretary highlighted immediate relief measures, including a £150 reduction in household energy bills scheduled for April. This, he explained, is part of a wider effort to tackle affordability while investing in long-term energy solutions.

“We’re taking £150 of costs off bills in April,” Miliband said, adding that the Government also plans to reduce bills by up to £300 by 2030.

The Warm Homes Plan aims to improve energy efficiency in millions of homes through measures such as better insulation, upgraded rental standards, and support for technologies including heat pumps and solar panels.

Support for Millions of Households

When asked whether most households would benefit directly from the programme, Miliband acknowledged that the initial rollout would focus on around five million homes.

However, he emphasised that the scheme would remain open to broader participation.

“Everyone can be eligible. Anyone can take up these opportunities of the grants or the loans,” he said, stressing that households will be able to choose whether to participate.

The Government hopes these upgrades will reduce long-term energy demand and provide more stable bills for households.

UK Energy Strategy and Clean Power

Miliband also linked the Government’s energy strategy to wider geopolitical instability, particularly volatility in global fossil fuel markets.

“At the moment we are subject to that roller coaster of fossil fuel markets controlled by the petro states and dictators and shaped by geopolitical events,” he said.

Instead, he argued, the UK should focus on expanding domestic clean energy generation.

“Much better to have homegrown clean power that we control,” he added.

He pointed to new offshore wind developments that could provide electricity for around 12 million homes as evidence of the Government’s long-term approach to energy security.

Climate and Environmental Protection

During the interview, Harries raised concerns about potential environmental impacts linked to renewable energy infrastructure projects.

Miliband responded by emphasising the broader environmental context of the energy transition.

“The biggest threat to the natural environment is climate change,” he said, arguing that the shift to clean energy is essential both for reducing emissions and protecting ecosystems.

Delivering Government Policy

On questions about government delivery and the role of the Civil Service, Miliband rejected suggestions that bureaucracy had slowed progress on energy reforms.

“I’m really proud of my relationship with the Civil Service and I’m proud of what we’ve achieved in this department over the last 18 months,” he said.

He pointed to achievements including record offshore wind auctions, new energy projects capable of powering millions of homes, and the establishment of Great British Energy.

The Challenge of High Bills

Miliband acknowledged that energy costs remain a major concern for households but argued that the Government is committed to bringing them down.

“Bills are too high,” he said. “That’s why we made the pledge to reduce bills by up to £300 by 2030.”

For the Energy Secretary, the strategy is about combining short-term relief with structural changes to the UK’s energy system.

“We are determined to do that because we know the cost-of-living crisis facing people and we want to do everything we can to tackle it,” he said.

This article features in the new edition of ChamberUK. Our parliamentary journal.

You can buy your copy here.

Photo Credit: Politics UK

Miles Bennington

Editor – Chamber UK Magazine

Labour Party Housing Market Policies Effects: Our Editor argues that Labour’s flagship 1.5 million homes pledge risks collapsing under weak delivery and harsh political realities, warning that unless Labour can turn planning reform into visible progress, frustrated young voters may look elsewhere in 2029.

“A decade of national renewal”, the end of “sticking plaster politics”. It all sounded so good in 2023, when the then Leader of the Opposition, Keir Starmer, signalled a more serious brand of politics, focused on the long term. He followed this up with a promise to build 1.5 million homes in England over the course of the next Parliament. Somewhere north of a 50 per cent increase in house building. A huge ask. 

Given the continued rise in the house price to wages ratio, voters were ready to see concerted action from a new government to make housing affordable. 

Skills Shortage?

So, over a year into this Government, what progress is there to see? None whatsoever. 

The number of residential planning approvals, both in terms of projects and units, has continued its downward trend since 2020, according to the Home Builders Association. According to the National House-Building Council, new home completions were 2 per cent down on the previous year in 2025. Recent figures from the Cobalt Development Index show a 6 per cent increase in planning applications, but an 11 per cent drop in approvals. 

Nowhere is there any evidence that the house-building sector is gearing up for an increase. Complaints of a skills shortage, high material costs, and delayed planning approvals abound.

Labour’s Story

Since the election, Labour has passed the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 and has updated the National Planning Policy Framework. Steve Reed, the Housing Secretary, insists that the Government will “just meet” the 1.5 million target by 2029 and that ministers are “pulling every lever” to do so. 

When pushed, he points to the effects of Labour’s planning reforms and a “hockey stick” curve describing a sharp increase in house building towards the end of this Parliament. The challenge with that strategy is that the longer any increase is left, the higher the annual rate of house building will need to be to hit the target. 

In simple terms, if England builds around 200,000 homes a year, we could expect a million homes over a five-year Parliament. If Labour want to build an additional 500,000 homes before 2029, they will need to deliver almost 170,000 additional homes per year in the last three years of the Parliament. What was a 50 per cent increase in annual home building at the start of this Government has quickly turned into an 85 per cent increase. 

The Politics

While the implementation of the actual policy looks bad, the politics may be survivable for Labour. According to YouGov tracking surveys, around 50 per cent of voters believe that it would be good for the country if house prices went down. However, only around 20 per cent believe it would make them better off, while a similar number believe it would make them worse off. Disapproval with Labour’s handling of housing is creeping up to a similar level of the last Government, but housing remains the most important issue facing the country for only 20 per cent of voters, though this is notably higher among the young. 

Has this Government grasped the same political insight that every government since Right to Buy must have? Increasing supply and easing prices risks denting the paper wealth of older existing homeowners, a high turnout voter group, to increase the wealth of hypothetical younger future homeowners, a low turnout voter group. Worse, the effects of developments – be they disruption, strain on infrastructure, or depreciation in house prices – are localised, allowing opposition to organise effectively to thwart or punish pro-development politicians. 

With frustration among voters growing, however, Labour has no counter against Reform’s arguments that stopping immigration will solve the housing crisis. Indeed, their promise-high, deliver-low strategy seems tailor-made to push young people into the arms of less mainstream parties. 

Sticking Plaster Politics – Labour Party Housing Market Policies Effects

After a year and a half, Labour’s decade of renewal seems nowhere in sight. If Labour cannot prove that government can at least make progress on the issues facing voters, they risk leaving voters politically homeless… as well as literally homeless. Steve Reed has said that his job is “on the line” if the 1.5 million target is missed. That is also true of all Labour MPs who enjoy anything less than crushing majorities. 

Time for an end to sticking plaster politics? 

This article features in the new edition of ChamberUK. Our parliamentary journal.

You can buy your copy here.

Photo Credit: Shutterstock

Sharon Lowrie

Chief Executive – Be Caring

Arguing that the NHS’s ambitions will fail without serious reform of home care, Sharon Lowrie, Chief Executive of Be Caring, sets out why local government must overhaul commissioning to unlock better outcomes with the money already available.

The NHS Fit for the Future: Ten Year Health Plan for England is built on the compelling premise that care must shift from hospital to community, from treatment to prevention, from analogue to digital. Ministers are right to champion it. But there is a stubborn gap between that ambition and the funding, commissioning culture, and political will needed to make it real, and nowhere is that gap more visible than in home care.

The Overlooked Backbone of Community Care

Home care keeps older and disabled people independent, reduces hospital admissions and, when it works well, delays or prevents the need for far more expensive residential placements. Yet it remains, in political terms, the sector nobody wants to own. The NHS talks about community services but rarely means home care specifically. Local government funds it but rarely shapes it. National policy mentions it in passing. The result is a service that is simultaneously essential and overlooked, bearing enormous systemic pressure while receiving disproportionately little strategic attention.

This is a problem that local government has both the power and the responsibility to fix.

The current commissioning model for home care is broken in ways that are structural, not incidental. The dominant approach, commissioning care in rigid time blocks, with travel time bundled invisibly into an hourly rate that has not kept pace with real costs, creates a system that rewards volume over quality and punishes investment in people. 

Staff turnover in the sector ran at 24.7 per cent in 2024–25, costing providers an estimated £500 million annually. Care workers routinely spend less than 70 per cent of their paid time actually delivering care. Families report late visits, rushed calls, and a revolving door of unfamiliar faces. These are not failures of individual providers. They are the predictable consequence of commissioning that treats care as a commodity rather than a relationship.

The tragedy is that we already know what works. Be Caring, the UK’s largest employee-owned care provider, has spent seven years building and evidencing an alternative. 

A Better Way

Our neighbourhood prime provider model assigns care workers to compact geographic areas, paying them a full block shift that includes travel, training, and gaps between visits. The results are not marginal. In Manchester, care worker productivity increased by more than 25 per cent following adoption of the model. In Leeds, the service achieved an Outstanding CQC rating. Retention improved. Client satisfaction improved. Under-delivery fell. The same funding, organised differently, delivered materially better outcomes.

None of this happened by accident. It required commissioners willing to move beyond rigid time-block contracts and engage with a genuine partnership model – one based on planned time, guaranteed volumes, and a shared commitment to outcomes rather than minutes. It required investment in digital infrastructure – in Be Caring’s case, a bespoke platform called CAREVIEW 360 – that provides real-time visibility of care delivery, enables smarter scheduling, and supports a trusted assessor model that reduces delays in care package reviews. And it required a provider with the values and workforce culture to sustain it. The technology does not replace the human; it makes the human possible.

This is Directly Relevant to the Government’s Three Shifts Agenda. 

Moving care from hospital to community requires community services that can actually absorb demand. Right now, fragmented home care cannot. 

Moving from treatment to prevention requires consistent, relationship-based care where workers know their clients well enough to notice change; rushed calls from temporary staff cannot deliver that. 

Moving from analogue to digital requires investment in care management systems that are fit for purpose; most of the sector is still using tools designed for a different era.

The ask of ministers and councillors is not to spend more money. It is to spend existing money differently. Smarter commissioning – neighbourhood-based, outcome-focused, with sufficient contract stability to enable genuine workforce investment – can deliver more care of higher quality with the funding already allocated. The evidence exists. The model has been tested, refined and independently validated. What is missing is the political will to commission it at scale.

The Political Choice Ahead

Home care has sat in the “too difficult” category for far too long. The NHS cannot genuinely move care into the community without it. Local authorities cannot ease pressure on hospitals without it. And the people who rely on it – older people determined to remain in their own homes, families who simply want reassurance that their loved ones are safe – should not have to wait any longer for the system to deliver what they need.

The solutions are there. We have already seen what works. The real test now is whether leaders, locally and nationally, are prepared to follow through.

This article features in the new edition of ChamberUK. Our parliamentary journal.

You can buy your copy here.

Photo Credit: Be Caring

Dr Luke Evans MP 

Shadow Minister for Health and Social Care

Drawing on his experience building a large audience on TikTok, “TikTok MP” Luke Evans argues that politicians must engage seriously with the platform to explain Parliament, counter misinformation and rebuild trust, making the case that responsible short-form communication is now essential to modern democratic life.

In politics, you have to meet people where they are. For decades, that meant appearing in village halls, touring the television studios, writing in local newspapers and, later, posting on Facebook and Twitter. Today, for a growing number of people, that place is TikTok.

Why Politicians Can’t Ignore TikTok

Since I was elected in 2019, I’ve been using TikTok. I’ve built an audience of over 52,000 people, 1.3 million likes, and an average of around 500,000 views every 60 days on my page. My motivation was simple. If large parts of the public consume information on TikTok, politicians cannot afford to ignore it. Doing so risks leaving a gap where misinformation, confusion, or distrust can grow unchecked.

TikTok is often misunderstood in Westminster. It’s sometimes dismissed as entertainment rather than communication, or as a space dominated by trends rather than substance. But in my experience, it’s better understood as a platform built around interaction. Unlike traditional broadcast media, it invites questions, responses, and conversations with the public in real time. That creates both opportunity and responsibility.

TikTok MP : Authenticity Over Polish

One of the most powerful aspects of the platform is its demand for authenticity. Highly polished political messaging tends not to work well. People respond instead to straightforward explanations and genuine engagement. That has shaped how I use the platform.

Much of my content focuses on explaining how Parliament works, why votes happen, what legislation means in practice, and how decisions are made. These are not always topics that cut through in the traditional media, but on TikTok, they often prompt thoughtful questions and discussion.

This matters because democratic institutions can feel distant or opaque to many people. When someone can ask a question directly and receive an explanation in plain language, it reduces that distance. It makes politics feel more accessible, which is one of the platform’s greatest strengths.

Transparency is another. Social media, including TikTok, allows politicians to explain decisions quickly and directly without relying on intermediaries. The ability to quickly convey your message can help build understanding, even when people disagree with it. In an age where trust in institutions cannot be taken for granted, developing a connection with the public is essential.

But the same features that create opportunity also create risk.

The Risks of Algorithmic Politics

TikTok’s algorithm amplifies content quickly and unpredictably. That can be positive when accurate information spreads widely. But it can be damaging when misinformation does the same. Like other social media platforms, TikTok rewards content that provokes strong reactions, which does not always align with careful policy discussion.

There is also a cultural risk for politics itself. Short-form communication encourages simplification. Complex policy debates do not always translate easily into sixty seconds, or less, of video. There is a balance between clarity and oversimplification, and politicians need to be conscious of that tension.

Another challenge is the broader online environment in which political content sits. Alongside constructive debate, there is exposure to harmful or extreme content. This is not unique to TikTok, but the speed and scale of modern platforms make it a real concern, particularly for younger audiences who may be encountering politics for the first time.

For these reasons, engagement with TikTok cannot be casual or unthinking. It requires judgement, responsibility, and a willingness to engage constructively, balanced against acting performatively. The goal should not be to chase trends alone, but to communicate clearly, using trends as a vehicle to do so – and this itself is a tough skill to master!

What is striking is how quickly the political landscape on TikTok is evolving. When I first joined, relatively few MPs were active on the platform. That’s changing rapidly. More and more parliamentarians, particularly Labour MPs, are establishing a presence there.

A New Layer of Democratic Communication

That shift reflects a broader reality about political communication. Each generation develops its own media habits. Radio did not replace public meetings. Television did not eliminate newspapers. Social media has not removed the importance of face-to-face engagement. Instead, each new medium adds another layer to how politics is discussed and understood.

TikTok is part of that continuing evolution. It may not look the same in five years’ time. The platform itself may change, and the way political content is consumed will certainly continue to evolve. It is impossible to know exactly what the digital landscape will look like by the time of the next General Election.

What is clear, however, is that this form of communication is not going away. Short-form video, interactive platforms, and direct engagement between politicians and the public are now established features of modern democratic life.

Ignoring that reality does not protect politics from the risks of misinformation or online influence. In fact, it can make those risks greater by leaving the space to others. Responsible engagement offers a chance to provide accurate information, explain democratic processes and demonstrate transparency in real time.

My experience on TikTok has reinforced a simple lesson. When politicians are willing to engage openly, explain decisions clearly and respond to questions honestly, people are prepared to listen. They may not always agree, but they value the effort to communicate.

Responsible Engagement in the Digital Public Square

The challenge for politics is not whether to engage with platforms like TikTok, but how to do so thoughtfully. It means recognising both its benefits and weaknesses. It means understanding that authenticity matters more than production value. It means accepting that communication is two-way, rather than one-directional.

Above all, it means being willing to learn. The digital public square continues to evolve, often faster than political institutions themselves. Those who are prepared to explore it responsibly can strengthen democratic participation. Those who ignore it risk falling behind. That doesn’t mean I get it right all the time. I am prepared to try and fail, but that in itself is authentic on TikTok.

TikTok is not a replacement for traditional political engagement, but it is becoming an important complement to it. While the future of political communication will continue to change, the need to meet people where they are remains constant. At this moment, for millions of people across the UK, that place includes TikTok.

This article features in the new edition of ChamberUK. Our parliamentary journal.

You can buy your copy here.

Photo Credit: Office of Dr Luke Evans

Ben Howlett

CEO, Chamber UK

More Than Potholes and Planning

Local elections are usually dismissed as secondary or peripheral events: a chance for voters to vent about bin collections, parking charges, or potholes without altering the national direction of travel.

But when a party is this unpopular, or when its leadership has attempted to redraw its political personality ahead of projected significant losses, these contests take on a far heavier significance. They become proxies for credibility, confidence, and control of a party battling to retain a shred of dignity.

This week’s local election and national Scottish Parliament and Welsh Senedd results will be read as a verdict on whether a carefully cultivated reset could ever work. In that sense, the numbers matter less than the narrative that follows them in the days ahead. What look to be significant losses for the Labour Party will define what this government is expected to deliver in the remainder of this Parliament. What matters now is how Sir Keir Starmer draws a line under disastrous results – and quickly.

Should he fail, the political heavyweight vultures are circling for his job.

A Leader Under Pressure: Authority, Anxiety, and the Circling Critics

For any party leader, local elections are an awkward test. For one whose authority rests on steadiness rather than passion, discipline rather than enthusiasm, the challenge is sharper still. Expectations have managed deliberately: by stressing these are going to be difficult election results – losing power in Wales for the first time in a century being quite an achievement – the Government hopes that the media will omit the word “shock” in front of dismal results.

Inside any large party, unease expresses itself indirectly. It appears first in tone rather than action: a harder edge to briefings, a sudden insistence on “benchmarks”, the revival of questions thought settled months earlier. No leadership collapses because of council results alone, but poor or ambiguous performances create the conditions in which internal rivals feel licensed to reposition themselves. The vultures do not wait for defeat; they gather when they sense blood in the air.

Welfare, McSweeney, Mandelson have all contributed to disappointment – but combined with some of the worst local election results in history for the Labour Party, could they force the hand of backbenchers to take rapid action.

The leader’s challenge, then, is not just to survive the night but to shape the interpretation of it. Control the story swiftly, or others will do it for you.

The Reset Question: Conviction or Calculator?

At the heart of this moment lies a deeper uncertainty about what the party now stands for. The much briefed post-local election reset has been pitched as realism: fewer emotional pledges, more managerial restraint, a conscious effort to deliver effective government. Supporters argue that voters crave seriousness after years of drama. Critics counter that caution risks draining politics of meaning.

The local election results overnight will intensify that debate. If this was any other local election night, one could easily say the danger for the Government is that it draws simplistic conclusions from complex local patterns – mistaking turnout quirks and council dynamics for sweeping national truths.

However, with a national result this disastrous for the governing party, it’s important to stress just how important national events and popularity are to the results. Like the Democrats in the US prior to the 2024 elections, do backbenchers act more decisively – as many US Democrats wished they had with Biden, and remove him earlier – or do they limp on to an almost certain electoral defeat at the next General Election?

European Alignment: The Strategic Silence Test

Nowhere is the ambiguity clearer than in the approach to relations with Europe. The leadership’s position has been one of deliberate understatement: improve cooperation where possible, rebuild trust quietly, and avoid the language that once polarised the country. It is a strategy rooted in risk avoidance rather than conversion.

As with Corbyn’s 2019 stance – which resulted in Labour’s worst electoral result in generations – the public do not respect ‘fence sitting’ on Brexit. A lack of clear position has a dreadful impact at the ballot box.

Given recent briefings, local election results will be scrutinised closely for what they appear to say about this silence. Gains in younger, urban, and university‑heavy areas for the Greens may embolden those who argue that closer alignment can be discussed more openly. Losses in other regions will strengthen the hand of those who believe the subject remains electorally toxic. Either way, the elections will influence whether Europe remains a background administrative issue or begins to re‑enter the political foreground.

Starmer is going to have to chose – is he going to go for a coalition of the left – or follow the McSweeney doctrine to pace after the centre and right. Neither shall the doth two meet.

Other Fault Lines: Public Services, Place, and Power

Beyond Europe, the results will resonate across several unresolved policy tensions. Voters’ judgments on local services inevitably bleed into assessments of national credibility. Claims of fiscal discipline sit uneasily alongside visible strain in local provision. Devolution, once heralded as a fix for regional inequality, will be tested by whether local leaders can convincingly argue that more power – not just more money – is the answer.

These elections will also expose the geographical limits of the reset. Geographically, where Labour stalls, uncomfortable questions will resurface about cultural connection and long‑term coalition‑building.

Local election results have resulted in speculation over Sir Keir Starmer’s premiership

A Verdict Deferred, But Not Avoided

Local elections rarely deliver clean verdicts, but they do establish trajectories. In 2026 the verdict will buck the trend.

For Starmer, a reset that survives contact with the electorate and his backbenchers gains authority simply by enduring. One that appears fragile invites challenge even without outright defeat.

The danger for the leadership is believing that ambiguity equals safety. In politics, unresolved questions rarely stay dormant.

 If the results suggest drift rather than direction, the pressure to define – and defend – a clearer purpose will only grow. These elections may not decide the future outright, but they will narrow the space in which it can still be negotiated.

Andy Burnham

Mayor of Greater Manchester

Arguing that Greater Manchester’s resurgence proves devolution can outpace Westminster dysfunction, Andy Burnham, Mayor of Greater Manchester, sets out why “Manchesterism” offers a practical model for good growth that could rebalance the entire UK economy.

For much of my early education and career, I lived with a truth familiar to so many born in the North during the 60s and 70s: if you wanted to get on, you had to go South. That was the unwritten rule of British life for decades. Yet today, something remarkable has happened in Greater Manchester. For the first time in my lifetime, the flow has reversed. Young people are choosing to come here – not leave – drawn by opportunity, affordability, culture, and a political model designed with them in mind.

In 2024, 13,000 people left London for Greater Manchester, compared with 11,800 heading in the opposite direction*. This shift didn’t happen by accident. It happened because, over the last decade, we’ve been quietly building a very different kind of politics – one I call Manchesterism. It’s rooted not in ideology but in place: a system built collaboratively, designed to respond to real lives rather than the games that dominate national politics. It stands in stark contrast to the dysfunctional, centralised, short-term Westminster system that has shaped British politics for far too long.

A Decade of Devolution – and Double the Growth

When Greater Manchester negotiated its first devolution deal ten years ago, we gained something Westminster had long denied us: the ability to set high ambitions and achieve them. Since then, our economy has grown at roughly twice the national rate, averaging around 3 per cent a year.

Why? Because when you empower places to shape their own future, they thrive. When you trust local leaders to know their communities, they deliver long-term, grounded change.

Through devolution, we became more functional as the country became more dysfunctional. We collaborated instead of competing. We intervened rather than leaving things to chance. Most importantly, we refused to accept limits on how high we could aim.

Our vision remains simple: good growth for good lives – unlocking investment to create homes, good jobs, and the infrastructure people need to live well.

What Manchesterism Really Means

Manchesterism is a distinct economic and political model rooted in devolution, long-term planning, and good growth. It’s both a way of governing and a strategy for rebuilding a modern industrial economy.

It is not a slogan. It is a system – a deliberate response to the high inequality, low growth trap Britain fell into from the 1980s onwards, when power was overcentralised in Westminster and key public institutions were fragmented or privatised.

Through Manchesterism, we reject that old model. We reject trickle-down economics – the belief that if you let a few places or people flourish, the benefits will eventually reach everyone else. In Greater Manchester, we know that has never worked. Real change requires intervention: fixing what national politics ignored – housing, transport, education, low pay, and insecurity – across every single borough of our city region.

How Manchesterism Works

Westminster politics thrives on short-termism – policies designed to firefight today’s crises rather than invest in tomorrow’s stability. We’ve taken the opposite approach. We’re planning for where we want our region to be by the middle of the century, and we are already delivering on that vision.

Through devolution, we now have some local control over the essential drivers of the economy: housing, utilities, transport, and education. We’re starting to tackle the consequences of deregulation, privatisation, austerity, and Brexit – decades of decisions that left the UK unable to guarantee reliable infrastructure and forced people and businesses to pay more for basics.

Devolution can enable a new model of public services based on integration and collaboration rather than fragmentation and competition. The Bee Network – our fully integrated public transport system – is a clear example. We brought buses back under local control for the first time in 40 years, on time and on budget, delivering a more affordable, reliable, and efficient network for residents.

And it’s not just transport. Devolution needs to go further: education, housing, and health are all areas where we need more tools to meet our greater ambition, enabling us to do what we know works best for our people.

A New Era of Re-industrialisation

Manchesterism has never been just about Manchester. Our mission is to deliver a new decade of good growth that reaches every part of our city region through clusters of productivity and innovation – and offers something to the rest of the country.

This requires a more assertive, confident approach to investment. We don’t wait for the market to back places and plans; we build a pipeline of projects and actively seek the right investor partners.

Our city centre has been transformed over the last two decades, with dense clusters of high-productivity businesses and professional services being traded across the world, combined with universities and the research infrastructure needed to support an innovation-led economy. And we’re now building an innovation-led, reindustrialised Greater Manchester around five key sectors: creative media; digital and tech; life sciences; advanced materials and manufacturing; and clean energy. Each of these clusters has a physical presence tied to a specific place, with projects already being delivered and infrastructure being built, like Atom Valley in Rochdale.

Our investments – through devolved funding, prudent local borrowing, and unlocking pension fund capital – have laid the foundations for long-term ambition. They provide the certainty and direction the private sector needs to come in behind us and help take our plans to scale.

But attracting investment also means choosing partners who share our values: who believe economic progress and social progress go hand in hand; who back good growth and deliver social value; who help recycle wealth back into communities rather than extract it.

To make this growth real for everyone, we also need clear pathways into good, secure jobs for young people. We are shaping a local skills system where every young person can see a direct line from their education to the opportunities our businesses are creating, and we need further devolution to fully realise those opportunities.

Analysis shows that another decade of ambitious, devolved growth could make Greater Manchester’s economy a third larger than it is today – adding £38 billion to national growth. But this must be growth that everyone feels, in every community.

This is why Manchesterism matters. It is not just a local project; it is a blueprint for a fairer, more ambitious way of doing things that can benefit the whole country.

This article features in the new edition of ChamberUK. Our parliamentary journal.

You can buy your copy here.

Photo Credit: Office of Andy Burnham

Cllr Ricky Bell

COSLA Resources Spokesperson 

Rural Scotland Funding: Cllr Ricky Bell, Resources Spokesperson for COSLA, argues that the UK Government’s new Local Growth Fund risks undermining Scotland’s rural economies by slashing revenue funding and excluding entire regions, leaving councils unable to support jobs, skills, and vulnerable communities.

The announcements from the UK Government on the Pride in Place and the Local Growth Fund, which many see as a successor to the UK Shared Prosperity Fund, were an opportunity to support long and lasting growth for communities in Scotland. 

A Fund That Cuts as it Claims to Grow

For the avoidance of doubt, I must reaffirm that our members do recognise the potential importance of UK Government funding, targeted or otherwise, in supporting local economic development and regeneration. However, Scottish local authorities have made it very clear to us that the new funding profile represents a very significant reduction in revenue funding to local areas year to year. This puts jobs at risk and severely limits councils’ and partners’ ability to fund vital employability support, skills development, business support, and preventative economic interventions.  

COSLA firmly believe that the approach to the allocation failed to account for the real differences in need across communities, with no acknowledgement of the higher costs of living and doing business in remote and rural areas. The outcome for Scotland is unprecedented, with nine local authorities allocated nothing from a £50 million per year pot. 

Revenue Slashed, Jobs at Risk

It is not only those without an allocation that miss out. The decision to fundamentally shift to a majority capital allocation for the new funds means local authorities across Scotland collectively face a 72 per cent decrease in revenue funding from 2025/26 to 2026/27. This means many thousands of vulnerable and marginalised people could be left without access to the tailored help and support they need. 

Voluntary and community sector organisations currently involved in the delivery of these programmes will also be unable to sustain these targeted employability support services that invest in people and not bricks.

To further illuminate the differences and impact, it may be prudent to consider both the Scotland-wide and local perspectives.

Scotland-wide Perspective 

On 8^th January 2026, the UK announced that a new UK Government (UKG) Local Growth Fund (LGF) of £140 million would be distributed to five Scottish Regional Economic Partnerships (REP). The funding allocated to the REPs from the programme over the next three years (2026/27–2028/29) is:

The fund is approximately 70 per cent capital. The remaining three Regional Economic Partnerships did not receive an allocation:

The Regional Economic Partnerships not receiving an allocation are largely rural, indicating that the methodology used to allocate the Local Growth Fund in Scotland favours more urban regions. The investment was targeted at regions containing the areas with the lowest Real Disposable Household Income (RDHI) per capita. As an unintended consequence, this has produced an outcome that greatly favours urban high population-based areas over rural areas.

Local Perspective 

Among our rural and remote authorities, there is profound disappointment with the UK Government’s recent decision to curtail the Local Growth Fund. This, coupled with the exclusion of some rural authorities from previous allocations of Pride in Place (PiP) funding, is the realisation of the worst fears regarding the prioritisation of remote and peripheral areas in a post-Brexit United Kingdom.

Even for areas that appear to be benefiting from the allocation, the shift to capital constrains what we can consider investment in and means projects benefiting now will end for something that might help in several years’ time.

The UK Shared Prosperity Fund (SPF) represented a step down in financial value from the previous European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and European Social Fund (ESF) that were in place prior to the UK leaving the European Union. The European Union previously recognised the socio-economic challenges faced by more peripheral areas and prioritised regional development funds to such areas accordingly. 

The UK Government’s decision on funding for economic growth represents a real-terms removal of this lifeline funding. This is a major oversight, and it will be perceived by the rural community as a significant lack of regard from central government. 

Rural Potential Overlooked

Rural communities in Scotland possess vast economic potential: being at the forefront of the energy transition in the UK; leading on developments in the space industry; and having strong local industries, including fishing and aquaculture. 

Communities far from the central belt require bespoke support in order to stimulate growth. The decision to base allocation methodology on household income indices simply ignores the higher costs of living and doing business faced by rural, remote, and island communities in Scotland.

This comes alongside another very poor settlement that fails to address the dire financial situation of local government in Scotland. This means that councils are, at present, having to make difficult decisions and present proposals for cuts to services across the country. 

This article features in the new edition of ChamberUK. Our parliamentary journal.

You can buy your copy here.

Photo Credit: Shutterstock

The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero are funding rooftop solar panels for schools and hospitals across England, as part of the government’s public services ‘Plan for Change’ and goal of reducing energy costs and making Britain a ‘clean energy superpower.’

The government, and the recently established public-owned energy company Great British Energy, are investing £180 million in the project, with the goal of reducing energy prices for the NHS and the education sector.

Solar panels have already been installed at 5 NHS locations and 3 schools, with another 8 schools due to receive them in the autumn. It is estimated that the total lifetime savings from these 16 sites will be £3.8 million, all of which will be reinvested into public services.

These sites will be just the beginning of the programme, with 200 schools and nearly 200 NHS locations (covering a third of NHS trusts) set to receive solar panels as part of the scheme. £80 million has been allocated to schools, whilst the remaining £100 million has been designated for the NHS.

The health service is the public sector’s single-largest energy consumer, with an annual energy bill of roughly £1.4 billion. This has doubled since 2019, which the DESNZ says is due to ‘the UK’s dependency on global fossil fuel markets over which government has no control.’ With this new programme of publicly funded solar panels, it is estimated that schools and hospitals could save up to £400 million.

Energy Secretary Ed Milliband said that such savings could be reinvested into ‘teachers,’ ‘textbooks,’ or ‘medical equipment,’ and that this programme was an example of the government’s ‘clean energy superpower mission in action.’

Meanwhile newly-appointed GB Energy CEO Dan McGrail said that this solar panel scheme will ‘deliver tangible benefits to the people that need it most in our hospitals and schools,’ whilst Chris Gormley, the Chief Sustainability Officer of NHS England, said the programme will allow them to increase their solar power generation by more than 300%. Gormley added that the scheme will save the NHS more than £8 million per year.

This solar panel rollout programme is part of GB Energy and DESNZ’s Local Power Plan, which aims to ensure that ordinary people across the country feel the benefit of the government’s net zero and clean energy mission.

The LPP will also see a £10 million grant awarded to English mayoral authorities to deliver green energy projects. This programme is projected to help public services, such as fire departments and libraries, save more than £30 million in energy costs.

Furthermore, whilst the solar panel rollout only covers England, the devolved governments in Scotland, Wales and Norther Ireland will receive a combined sum of nearly £10 million from Westminster to invest into renewable energy projects.

Today’s announcement also comes shortly after the government announced the Atlantic Partnership for Advanced Nuclear Energy, which will see billions invested into British nuclear energy by American companies, and closer collaboration between researchers and regulation authorities on both sides of the Atlantic.

Last month, Ed Milliband set out his plan for how GB Energy can become a ‘new national champion and allow us to reap the benefits of Britain’s abundant natural resources,’ and today and last week’s announcements seem to fit well with his vision.

3 specific areas were outlined as crucial to the DESNZ and GB Energy meeting their objectives – increased investment in established clean energy sources, activity in domestic supply chains, and ensuring that people feel the benefits of clean energy in their own communities – and today and last week’s announcements seem to fulfil all of them, assuming that UK based companies play a part in this solar panel rollout.

The government has also confirmed that Great British Energy will publish its first strategic plan within six months, setting out how it will accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels and expand public ownership in clean power in more detail. Ministers have said that this plan will prioritise energy security, value for money for taxpayers, and protection from global price shocks.

As installations progress, all participating schools and hospitals are expected to have solar panels up and running by April next year. Officials expect that the scheme will immediately begin to deliver savings for frontline services, with benefits felt in classrooms and hospital wards across the country.

Supporters of the programme argue that this rollout demonstrates the practical benefits of clean energy – not only cutting carbon emissions, but also reducing pressure on public budgets and creating skilled jobs in the green economy.

As Milliband concluded: ‘This is not just about climate action. It is about rebuilding Britain’s public services, protecting billpayers, and proving that the transition to clean energy can and must be a mission that delivers for everyone;’ many will hope that he can be successful, as the whole country feels the weight of some of the highest energy prices in the world.

It is hoped that the programme will lead to the creation of thousands of jobs, through the establishment of new apprenticeship and training routes, and will overcome planning restrictions to bring about the development of numerous new artificial intelligence facilities. It is projected that construction on such projects will begin in just a matter of weeks, with there being up to £30 billion in funding designated by the government for investment in the North-East’s tech landscape.

The announcement, made by Technology Secretary Liz Kendall alongside Northeast Mayor Kim McGuinness, brings together a coalition of local universities, skills providers, and leading AI firms, such as Nscale, Nvidia, and OpenAI. The taskforce is designed to fast-track investment and skills development, ensuring that the region plays a central role in shaping the UK’s AI future.

The Growth Zone will also provide thousands of new job opportunities across relevant industries, with roles expected to be created in construction, energy, data management and software engineering, alongside highly specialised AI research positions. The plan also places emphasis on apprenticeships and training programmes to ensure that young people benefit directly from the investment.

According to Liz Kendall, this announcement will see the north-east of England lead the charge in the ‘AI revolution,’ and will create ‘real opportunities’ for people across the region.

Her comments were echoed by North East Mayor Kim McGuinness, who said that ‘AI can be transformational for people and the local economy.’ She also said that the government’s investment in the project will create thousands of jobs for the area, and see ‘the North East leading innovations in tech,’ but stressed the need to ensure that the ordinary people of the region feel the benefits of the project.

The taskforce has identified key sites for development, including Cambois near Blyth and Cobalt Park, one of the UK’s largest out-of-town business parks, near Newcastle. These locations will host new data centres, training hubs, and AI infrastructure, with building work due to commence within weeks.

Cobalt Park, already home to major employers such as Sage, has been earmarked as a central hub of the Growth Zone thanks to its access to subsea fibre connections, existing office space and potential for significant energy expansion. Guy Marsden, director of the site, described the government’s new announcement as a ‘landmark milestone’ for the region, that will unlock ‘jobs, investment, and innovation.

The Growth Zone has already attracted high-profile backers. Blackstone has committed £10 billion to the development of the Cambois site, while Nscale, OpenAI and NVIDIA have announced plans to launch Stargate UK – an AI infrastructure platform, part of which will be based at Cobalt Park. Phase one of the project will see up to 8,000 NVIDIA GPUs deployed next year, scaling up to 31,000 GPUs over time.

The move was welcomed by Ben Aung, Chief of Staff at business management software company Sage, who hopes the announcement ‘will inspire and upskill the next generation of AI talent,’ and described it as “a vote of confidence in the North East.’

This announcement is a sign of the region, which 250 years ago was a key player in the Industrial Revolution, positioning itself at the forefront of the AI revolution. With universities including Newcastle, Durham, Sunderland and Northumbria, the region has long been a hub of technical research and development. The government hopes the new designation will strengthen these institutions’ ability to attract investment and global talent while delivering long-term opportunities for young people in the region.

The Growth Zone will also take advantage of the North East’s position as the UK region with the most access to low-carbon energy sources, making it particularly well suited for large-scale data operations, which require vast amounts of power. Such a foundation, combined with last week’s announcement of increased government investment into nuclear energy in the region, should allow AI development in the region to be both sustainable and scalable.

If successful, the AI Growth Zone will not only reshape the economic landscape of the North East but also redefine the region’s role in the UK tech-industry’s future. By combining cutting-edge technology with world-class research and a strong skills pipeline, the project seeks to ensure that opportunities are created not just for global investors and major firms, but for communities across the region. As shovels prepare to hit the ground in Cambois and Cobalt Park, the ambition is clear: to cement the North East’s position as a national leader in innovation, and to deliver a new era of prosperity powered by artificial intelligence.

Health Secretary Wes Streeting has today opened a new Moderna Innovation and Technology Centre in Hartwell, Oxfordshire, as part of the government’s newly announced strategic partnership with the American pharmaceutical giant; news that will increase optimism at a turbulent time for the UK’s life sciences sector.

The partnership will see Moderna invest £1 billion in research and development across Britain, aiming to discover new treatments and make the country more pandemic-resistant. Moderna will also produce millions of vaccines using MRNA technology at their Oxfordshire facility, which has the capacity to produce 250 million vaccine doses in the event of a pandemic.

The government has also announced the creation of a new Life Sciences Transformational R&D Investment Fund, which will see Westminster invest £50 million into life science projects that are worth over £100 million.

The British life sciences sector currently generates more than £100 billion per year for the British economy, and it is hoped that this newly announced partnership with Moderna and the government’s new investment fund will bolster it further.

Wes Streeting said that new ‘pioneering centres’ like the one in Hartwell ‘will help ensure this country remains a powerhouse’ in the life sciences sector, whilst Science Minister Lord Vallance said that it ‘will strengthen the UK’s growth, health and resilience.’ Meanwhile Moderna’s UK General Manager Darius Hughes said that his company’s collaboration with the British government is a ‘win-win-win for patients, the government, and for the life sciences sector.’

This partnership with Moderna is not the only partnership the UK government has with a pharmaceutical giant; in 2023, the then-Conservative government unveiled a partnership with Biontech to provide thousands of British patients with precision cancer immunotherapies by 2030, whilst in November 2024 the current government announced a partnership with Eli Lilly, the maker of weight-loss drug Manjaro, to build a new innovation accelerator facility.

However, this morning the company’s Chief Executive David Ricks warned the British government that the UK would miss out on new drugs if they do not take measures to raise the price of pharmaceutical products, calling Britain ‘probably the worst country in Europe for drug prices.’

Despite today’s Moderna announcement, Ricks’ remarks are the latest incident in a worrying trend of pharmaceutical companies finding themselves at odds with the British government; earlier this month the UK President of Astra-Zeneca described Britain as an ‘increasingly challenging’ country to develop drugs in after his company paused a £200 million investment into a site in Cambridge, whilst Merck has recently chosen to scrap plans to expand its UK operations by £1 billion.

Whilst science minister Ian Murray said that Merck’s decision was disappointing, the government has said that they hope to make Britain ‘the destination of choice’ for the life sciences sector, and today’s Moderna announcement appears to be a step towards this and is a vote of confidence from a pharmaceutical giant.

The new Oxfordshire facility will be the latest development in the government’s vision to turn the Oxford-Cambridge corridor into ‘Europe’s silicon valley.’ The plans to connect the two university cities with improved transport links and the construction of thousands of homes were unveiled at the start of the year aspire to attract the world’s best talent to the country, and bolster the cities’ already thriving life sciences, manufacturing, and artificial intelligence sectors.

Beyond vaccine production, the Moderna site is expected to collaborate closely with UK universities and NHS research programmes to accelerate trials of mRNA-based therapies for cancer and rare diseases. Ministers argue that such collaborations will ensure discoveries move more swiftly from laboratories to patients, positioning Britain as a leader in next-generation treatments. The facility will also provide training opportunities for young scientists, helping to develop a pipeline of skilled professionals within the region.

However, whether it will prove a success remains to be seen. Rt Hon Andrew Stephenson, Chair of Curia’s Health, Care and Life Sciences Research Group Advisory Board says that today’s announcement ‘must be the start of a more ambitious and joined-up approach,’ and that such partnerships will only transform Britain’s health and economic prospects ‘if matched by a consistent and long term industrial strategy.’

Overall, the opening of Moderna’s Innovation and Technology Centre marks a significant step toward strengthening the UK’s life sciences sector and pandemic preparedness. While the £1 billion investment and government support signal confidence in Britain’s research and manufacturing capabilities, industry leaders rightly warn that long-term success will depend on stable policies, competitive pricing, and sustained collaboration between government and industry. If these conditions are met, Hartwell’s new facility could become a cornerstone of Britain’s ambition to remain a global leader in healthcare innovation and economic growth, but if they’re not, the UK’s goals of becoming home to ‘Europe’s Silicon Valley’ could fall flat.

It is hoped that the UK’s first carbon capture-enabled cement plant in Flintshire, north Wales, and one of the world’s first carbon capture-enabled waste-to-energy facilities in Ellesmere Port, Cheshire will remove 1.2 million tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere every year.

These projects are part of the government’s new industrial strategy, with more than £9 billion being allocated to carbon capture projects during June’s spending review.

The Wales and Cheshire facilities will form part of the HyNet carbon capture and storage network that was announced in April, which will see millions of tonnes of carbon captured before being transferred to and stored in a facility in Liverpool Bay.

It is hoped that today’s newly announced projects will help boost employment prospects in north Wales and north-west England, with Energy Minister Michael Shanks saying that they will ‘directly support 500 skilled jobs, as part of the 2,800 jobs across the wider HyNet network.’

Shanks also added that today’s announcement shows that the government is ‘positioning Britain as a global leader on net zero’ and that the projects will help to power ‘Britain’s reindustrialisation.’

Meanwhile, Simon Willis, CEO of Heidelburg Materials, the developer of the north Wales site, described the upcoming project as ‘fantastic news’ for the whole carbon capture industry and seemed confident about its success, saying that the facility will be a ‘world-leader’ that will help ‘position the UK as a global force at the forefront of this technology.’

And the Chief Executive of Encyclis, who will be developing the site in Cheshire, Mark Burrows-Smith said that the UK has a ‘once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to begin decarbonising waste.’

The Chief Executive of the Low Carbon Contracts Company, Neil McDermott, also praised the projects, emphasising that they represent a major step toward decarbonising Britain’s most challenging industries, demonstrating ‘the critical role carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) will play in cutting emissions from heavy industry and energy-from-waste.” He also said that his company’s decision to invest in the projects were a vote of confidence in the sector and would hopefully pave the way for investment from other firms.

One of the main aims of such carbon capture products is the preservation of carbon intensive industries. Sectors such as cement production and waste management are incredibly hard, if not impossible, to decarbonise, and thus carbon capture is seen as the only viable way to reduce emissions. The government hopes that through projects such as those announced today, they can forge a cleaner future for carbon-intensive sectors and secure the jobs of the thousands of people working in them.

However, there is a risk that with increased focus on carbon capture, efforts to reduce carbon emissions at their source or to transition to cleaner manufacturing methods will be neglected. Whilst there will be some industries where there are no other options, care will have to be taken to ensure that carbon capture and storage is not just seen as a substitute for greener production processes.

For local communities, the projects offer not just employment but also the promise of cleaner air. Ashley Spruce, a current Environmental Science student and future Environmental Manager at the site in Cheshire described the opportunity as “an excellent step for the industry” and said she was proud to be involved in the UK’s first energy-from-waste plant with on-site carbon capture. Her comments reflect growing enthusiasm among young professionals for careers that combine cutting-edge technology with tangible environmental benefits, with DESNZ polling finding that those aged 25 to 34 are most likely to be supportive of renewable energy programmes.

As construction gets underway, today’s newly announced projects are expected to act as flagship examples of British innovation and collaboration between government, industry, and regional stakeholders. If successful, they could unlock export opportunities for UK-based engineering and technology firms, as, despite backlash from American President Donald Trump, countries across the world take steps towards net zero emissions and clean, renewable energy.

Additionally, if the projects are successful, then more may follow as part of the government’s long-term industrial and climate strategies, creating thousands more jobs and improving air quality cleaner across the country.

However, as we have seen with many recent British infrastructure projects, such as HS2 and Hinkley Point C, success is far from guaranteed. Delays, cost overruns, and shifting political priorities have all hampered previous large-scale infrastructure efforts, and carbon capture could face similar challenges if planning, regulation, and funding are not managed carefully.

Nevertheless, today’s announcement is the latest in a series from the government that are showing, at a time where a sense of doom and gloom around Britain is often inescapable, there is some hope for the future, and carbon capture could be a key step towards the government’s goals of achieving net zero and making Britain a clean energy ‘superpower.’

Foreign Policy

The topic of foreign policy at the conference was dominated by 3 subjects: the European Union, Elon Musk, Donald Trump.

On Monday morning, conference delegates passed a detailed motion calling on the government to develop stronger ties with the EU, highlighting the party’s long-term goal of reversing Brexit and seeing the UK ‘take its rightful place back at the heart of Europe.’

Regarding the world’s richest man, Sir Ed Davey has been highly critical of Elon Musk ever since he appeared via video link at a Tommy Robinson rally earlier this month, where he called for a ‘dissolution of parliament’ and told spectators that they must either ‘fight back’ or ‘die.’ In response to this, Davey wrote a letter to Prime Minister Keir Starmer asking him to publicly condemn Musk’s comments, to which Musk responded by calling the Lib Dem leader a ‘coward.’

Davey’s criticism of Musk continued at the conference; speaking to the BBC’s Laura Kuennsberg, Davey said that Musk is ‘committing crimes’ by allowing certain graphic content to remain on his X platform, whilst during an interview with Sky News he called for him to be prosecuted under the new Online Safety Act and arrested if he ever comes to the UK.

Musk is not the only major figure in US politics to have caught Davey’s wrath during the conference, as he accused President Donald Trump of having an ‘anti-science agenda,’ after the US government cut funding for biomedical research in February – a decision that Davey claimed was motivated by ‘cruelty and stupidity.’

However, when asked by PoliticsUK whether he would rather live on a desert island with Trump, Musk, or Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, Davey chose the American President, albeit not necessarily for the right reasons; ‘Trump is the oldest and so he wouldn’t last very long.’

Additionally, during his keynote speech at the end of the conference, Davey warned his party not to allow Reform UK leader Nigel Farage to turn Britain into Trump’s America.

The Threat of Reform

The rise of Farage’s party was another topic on everyone’s minds at the conference. On Monday afternoon, a panel of 3 senior Lib Dem councillors discussed the party’s new Reform Watch initiative, a scheme founded by Ed Davey which encourages grassroots activists and councillors to report back to the party on the activities of Reform in their local area.

Whilst they were highly critical of Reform, accusing them of misleading campaigning and ‘building a record of failure’ through their councils across the country, the mood was certainly not one of fear, with the panel clearly determined, hopeful, and confident that the Lib Dems are the party best positioned to ‘tackle Reform head on.’

The panel also argued that the Lib Dems, not Reform, were the real party of patriotism; a patriotism defined by helping out your community, and ‘talking (your country) up, not talking it down,’ a sentiment that has been on display all throughout a conference where journalists were given a ‘plastic patriot’ Nigel Farage lego figure, and former leader Tim Farron called on delegates to ‘reclaim patriotism’ from the far right, whilst draped in an England flag.

Clean Energy and the Environment

Another key focus of the conference, one that has got somewhat less media coverage than others, was clean energy, climate change, and the environment.

In the conference’s policy review motion, titled ‘Leading the Way,’ the party claimed that the UK is currently on track to miss its net zero targets, that 1 in 6 animal species in Britain are at threat of extinction, and that tens of thousands of Brits are being killed by air pollution each year.

The motion also established the Lib Dems intention to lead the way to a ‘free, fair and open society,’ where ‘everyone can enjoy the benefits of (Britain’s) wonderful natural environment.’

On Sunday the conference also voted in favour of supporting the construction and development of small modular reactors and other methods of generating nuclear power, highlighting the party’s position that nuclear is the way forward when it comes to achieving net zero.

Healthcare and Life Sciences

The aforementioned ‘Leading the Way’ motion also focussed on healthcare, recognising the ‘stark and persistent regional inequalities’ in the quality of healthcare across the country, committing to working towards securing the necessary investment to close those gaps, and listed ‘improving primary healthcare’ and shifting more care out of hospitals and into communities as a key topic that parliament should be focussing on.

Furthermore, in his speech on Tuesday, Ed Davey claimed that under a Reform government the health service would cease to exist and patients would be ‘hit with crippling insurance bills,’ and invited American cancer researchers affected by Donald Trump’s previously mentioned research cuts to Britain, saying ‘if Trump won’t back this research, we will.’

Technology

Elsewhere, Science and Technology spokesperson Victoria Collins launched a new policy plan to protect children from the potential harms of social media and improve their mental health.

The plan includes a proposed ‘doomscrolling cap,’ which would limit the amount of time children can spend scrolling short-form video content to 2 hours a day, and calls for social media companies to introduce health alerts for under-18s.

Such proposals are motivated by recent polling from the party which found that 80% of parents of school-aged children surveyed report that excessive social media usage has caused negative behaviours in their children, including difficulty sleeping, arguments with family members, and loss of interest in other hobbies. 

The party also voted in favour of holding a debate about the topic of digital ID cards, at a time when it is being reported that the government are considering introducing them to tackle illegal immigration. Whilst when they were in government alongside the Conservatives in 2010 the Lib Dems blocked a r proposal to introduce digital ID, during Tuesday’s speech Davey called for the party to look at the issue again, recognising that ‘times have changed’ and stating that he was impressed with the system being used in Estonia.

Furthermore, despite Davey calling for Elon Musk to be prosecuted under it, the conference passed a motion calling for reform of the Online Safety Act, demanding that it be reviewed by parliament and that regulation focusses on ‘real online harms,’ rather than ‘blocking access to politics, education, or wellbeing resources.’ The end goal of these proposals is the creation of a new ‘Digital Bill of Rights’ to protect freedom of speech, whilst simultaneously ensuring that the public is protected from genuinely harmful content.

Conclusion

Overall, the Lib Dem conference painted a picture of a party striving to balance principle with pragmatism. By doubling down on their pro-EU credentials, championing clean energy and environmental action, and calling for investment in healthcare and life sciences, the Liberal Democrats reinforced their progressive identity. At the same time, Ed Davey’s combative stance toward figures like Elon Musk and Donald Trump, and his warnings about Nigel Farage’s Reform UK, showed a readiness to engage forcefully in today’s polarised political climate. Whether their ambitions will translate into greater influence at Westminster remains to be seen, but the conference left little doubt about the Lib Dems’ determination to shape Britain’s future.