Miles Bennington

Editor – Chamber UK

Today, after a smashing week of defending the rights of former Neo-Nazis to run as Conservative candidates, Kemi Badenoch, leader of the Conservative Party, has unveiled her latest desperate attempt to wrest voters back from Reform UK. The plan is to throw refugees, foreign nationals with settled status and people with a humanitarian visas (such as Ukrainians, Hong Kongers and Afghans who helped our forces during the war in Afghanistan) out of social housing. They also propose to exclude British children that have two foreign parents from social house. Slow claps all round.

This is a perfect example of the type of policy that will do the Conservatives absolutely no favours. It’s impractical, cruel and unserious, yes, but on the other hand, it is also not nearly as fun as Reform’s proposal to use the Royal Navy to stop small boats. This equally stupid policy at least let’s you say that this will be “the largest military operation” in the Channel “since World War II” as Nigel put it, presumably to the tune of Jerusalem.

Semi-Kemi

This policy has all the hallmarks of a Reform policy, with none of the advantages. It’s an awful halfway house.

Firstly, it targets people that most Brits have at least some affection for. Ukrainians fleeing war, Hong Konger’s fleeing authoritarianism, Afghans that risked their lives helping our soldiers, oh and children. Even in immigration discourse, this is punching down.

Secondly, it has all the problems of a Reform Policy. There’s a good chance it would violate the ECHR and Refugee Convention, which would lead to huge legal battles and would likely require that the UK become a pariah among western democracies, actively smashing up a rules-based order which otherwise forms the foundation of our foreign policy. This will prompt tepid resistance from the damp end of the Tory party and a further exodus of comfortable voters from the Tory ranks.

Thirdly, it will have to be enforced, which will require some sort of ICE-style force, being filmed making children homeless. As the Trump administration continues to arm thugs and let them shoot Americans on the street, this is probably not a spectre you want to raise to win back seats from the Liberal Sodding Democrats.

Fourthly, it carves out EU citizens with settled status. Adding a delicious layer of fudge that I am sure Reform UK and Restore Britain will use to argue that they can go further.

Maybe there is someone out there that can out-Nigel Nigel. But it ain’t Kemi.

Remember Elections?

Despite unearned smugness, the Tories are in dire straits. As Christian Calgie asked in Politics UK’s recent In Conversation with Kemi, “You and your team seem pretty chuffed at the moment. To put it bluntly… Why?” They are stuck between trying to win votes from Labour and the LibDems or Reform and Restore.

The vast, vast, vast majority of seats the Conservatives will be targeting at the next election are currently held by Labour or the LibDems. So every vote they can win from them is worth double.

Any votes drifting to Reform however will make many gains, and even holding onto seats almost impossible.

Since 2024, a multiparty system has emerged in the UK that threatens coalition parties such as the Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats. They struggle to compete for clarity of offering (and therefore social media reach) with parties controlled by a single charismatic leader.  They also suffer from containing people with experience of Government in them, so they are less adept at creating popular nonsense policies than their newer competitors.

In this situation the best course for the Conservative Party, would be to compromise with Liberal Democrat voters, trust that Labour will alienate some of their 2024 vote and hold the line as a more credible alternative to Labour than Reform. This strategy both plays to Conservative strengths and Reform’s weaknesses. Had the Tories chosen say, Jeremy Hunt as leader in 2024, he would likely now be hoovering up money from former Reform donors who think Labour is a more pressing threat to their finances than Count Binface.

Instead, Olukemi Olufunto Adegoke “Kemi” Badenoch, has decided that she is best placed to win a ‘kick foreigners’ contest with Nigel Farage and Rupert Lowe.

Goodluck. With That.

Kemi’s Future

Hear me out. I have no personal insights into Kemi’s plans so this is all conjecture; but is it possible she has already written the Conservative Party off and is now just milking her leadership for all the attention it can create for her?

While the current electoral strategy makes no sense for the Conservative Party, it would make a lot of sense as a launchpad for a career in right wing punditry, perhaps playing the respected foreign leader for an American audience. Is it possible that it’s not Kemi’s brain that’s been pickled on X but her business model? At least that would make this strategy make sense.

Alternatively, maybe she is just sinking into a warm bath of feelgood nonsense for the right-wing of the Conservative Party. Taking on the “no enemies to the right” mantra of American politics while celebrating the absence of bad headlines. Maybe she hasn’t noticed that an absence of bad headlines has coincided with the absence of any headlines at all… Perhaps, the Conservatives are assuming a comfortable irrelevance more familiar to Liberal Democrats.

That would be mad. Third place in the next General Election will spell death for the Conservatives. They will lose their place as the default home of funding, press attention and votes for those who want lower taxes. They will be a broad-church party with no congregation. All the careerists and hangers-on will leave.

Kemi seems to be trying to be the most “right wing” party in UK politics. But remaining the default right wing option in UK politics what the Conservatives should be playing for at the next General Election. She is aiming for the wrong target.

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

You can buy your copy here.

Photo Credit:  Simon Dawson / No 10 Downing Street

BP’s highest quarterly profit since 2022 has placed the taxation of energy companies firmly back on the political agenda, less than three months before Chancellor John Healey delivers his first Budget.

The oil and gas company reported an underlying profit of $5.73 billion, or around £4.26 billion, between April and June 2026. This was more than double the $2.35 billion recorded during the equivalent period last year, with higher oil and gas prices, trading and refining margins strengthening its results.

Healey, who became Chancellor on 20 July, will present the Government’s Budget on 28 October. He has promised to remain within the fiscal rules inherited from Rachel Reeves, while Prime Minister, Andy Burnham has acknowledged that meeting spending commitments may require the Government to “ask for a little more” in taxation.

Against that backdrop, BP’s results will inevitably invite questions over whether the energy sector could be asked to contribute more.

Crisis-driven profits strengthen the political case

BP’s increased earnings largely reflect a rise in global commodity prices following disruption to energy supplies during the conflict involving Iran. Brent crude averaged approximately $97 a barrel during the second quarter, compared with $67 a year earlier, according to Reuters.

Shell has also reported a sharp rise in earnings, while other major international oil companies have benefited from disruption to global supplies.

Even US President Donald Trump, normally a vocal supporter of lower corporate taxation and deregulation, criticised American oil companies for profiting excessively from the crisis.

He said:

“I don’t like it, and I should be the last one to say because I’m a big free enterprise guy.

“They ought to give some of that back to the public, and they better cut the retail price, the consumer price.”

For Healey, the political attraction of further action is clear. Households and businesses face higher fuel and energy costs, while companies selling oil and gas report billions of pounds in additional earnings. A carefully framed levy could allow the Chancellor to raise revenue while arguing that the burden is falling on exceptional, crisis-driven gains rather than ordinary workers.

Britain already has a windfall tax

The Energy Profits Levy applies to profits from oil and gas production in the UK and on the UK Continental Shelf. Its rate stands at 38%, taking the headline tax rate on upstream oil and gas activities to 78%, and it is scheduled to continue until March 2030 unless the existing price mechanism ends it earlier.

The Government has also published plans for a permanent Oil and Gas Revenue Levy to replace the existing regime. The proposed levy would apply during periods of unusually high prices, charging 35% on oil and gas sales revenue above specified thresholds. It would apply only after the Energy Profits Levy ends and only to companies producing oil and gas in the UK or on the UK Continental Shelf.

This means Healey’s forthcoming decision is more likely to concern whether the current regime should be extended, tightened, or broadened.

BP’s global profits create a taxation problem

One complication is that BP’s $5.73 billion figure represents earnings from its global business.

The existing UK levy applies only to profits from extracting oil and gas domestically. It does not automatically capture BP’s earnings from international production, refining, commodity trading, or other overseas operations.

That distinction matters because a dramatic increase in BP’s group-level profits does not necessarily produce a proportionate increase in UK windfall-tax receipts.

A broader windfall-tax on the worldwide profits of UK-headquartered energy companies would be far more complicated. The Treasury would need to consider existing corporation-tax rules, international agreements, where profits were generated, and the risk that companies could relocate activities or restructure their tax affairs.

Healey could instead choose a narrower adjustment, such as changing the levy’s thresholds, closing allowances, or introducing a supplementary charge connected specifically to exceptional price-driven returns.

Campaigners demand a stronger response

Environmental and anti-poverty campaigners argue that the Government should act more aggressively.

Greenpeace’s Angharad Hopkinson said BP’s results showed that “corporate gains have become entirely divorced from the public good”.

She welcomed the company’s decision to sell its North Sea operations but added:

“Prolonging this parasitic relationship by trying to squeeze the last few drops of expensive oil out of the North Sea is sheer folly.”

Simon Francis, co-ordinator of the End Fuel Poverty Coalition, said oil companies had “banked more billions from a crisis that has created real hardship for millions of households”.

He added:

“The lesson is not to hand yet more tax breaks to an industry posting billions in profit every quarter, but to use Windfall Tax receipts to clear the record energy debt households built up during the crisis.”

That proposal could appeal to a government already presenting itself as focused on household finances. Burnham has announced that VAT on domestic electricity bills will be removed from 1 October, with the policy funded through the cancellation of the Digital ID programme.

Using additional energy-sector receipts to reduce household debt or fund further bill support would reinforce that cost-of-living message.

Investment concerns may limit the Chancellor’s options

The opposing argument is that repeated windfall tax changes could discourage investment in domestic production, weaken energy security and accelerate companies’ withdrawal from the North Sea.

BP has already announced plans to sell its North Sea business, potentially ending six decades of production in the region. Industry representatives and political figures in Scotland have argued that the existing fiscal regime has made the basin less competitive.

BP chief executive Meg O’Neill has stressed that the company must prioritise commercial returns:

“We have to focus on the assets with the strongest potential to deliver competitive returns and long-term value.”

Speaking to the BBC, Investment Director at AJ Bell, Russ Mould said the company could not assume that favourable oil and gas prices would continue indefinitely:

“O’Neill will be aware she cannot rely on oil and gas prices remaining this high indefinitely.

“She needs to make sure it can prosper even when the backdrop is less helpful.”

The Treasury will therefore have to weigh the immediate revenue and political benefits of a tougher levy against the danger of reducing long-term investment and future tax receipts.

What could Healey do at the Budget?

There is not yet confirmation that the Chancellor intends to announce an additional energy windfall tax on 28 October.

However, the political and fiscal pressures make it highly likely that the taxation of exceptional energy profits will at least be reviewed before the Budget. This is an inference from Healey’s limited fiscal room, the Government’s cost-of-living priorities and the renewed increase in company earnings, rather than a confirmed Treasury plan.

A completely new levy on BP’s worldwide profits appears less straightforward. More plausible options include adjusting the existing Energy Profits Levy, bringing forward elements of its permanent successor, revisiting price thresholds or linking additional receipts to household energy support.

The Chancellor’s decision will ultimately reveal how the new Government intends to balance three competing priorities: raising revenue, protecting consumers, and maintaining investment in Britain’s energy sector.

BP’s results have ensured that Healey will face pressure to act. Whether that results in a new windfall tax, a tougher version of the existing levy or no immediate change will be one of the most closely watched questions ahead of his first Budget.

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

You can buy your copy here.

Photo Credit: Official White House Photo by Emily J. Higgins

The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), signed between the US Department of Energy’s Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) and the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA), will deepen collaboration across plasma science, workforce exchange, advanced computing and fusion technology.

The agreement follows The King’s Address to a Joint Meeting of Congress in Washington DC, where he highlighted new partnerships between the UK and United States on fusion energy, and said British and American ingenuity should continue to lead the world.

While fusion has long been presented as a future clean energy breakthrough, the significance of this agreement is broader than a single research partnership. It places fusion firmly within the wider UK-US relationship on science, trade, industrial strategy and energy security at a time when governments are seeking to reduce exposure to volatile global energy markets and build advantage in strategic technologies.

From the Lab to the Grid

Fusion energy aims to replicate the process that powers the sun, offering the possibility of abundant low carbon energy with no long-lived radioactive waste and no greenhouse gas emissions from power generation. The scientific promise is considerable, but the engineering challenge remains among the most complex in the world.

That is why partnerships between national laboratories matter. The route from experimental success to commercial power plants will require not only scientific discovery, but major advances in materials, magnets, plasma control, tritium handling, diagnostics, computing and plant design. No single country is likely to solve these challenges alone.

Under the new agreement, PPPL and UKAEA will expand scientific, academic and educational cooperation across fusion science and technology. The partnership includes reciprocal staff exchanges, access to major research facilities, joint projects, the exchange of academic information, collaboration on ITER diagnostics, advanced computing and wider information sharing over the coming years.

Fusion is not a field where progress happens through one breakthrough moment. It advances through accumulated knowledge, shared facilities, improved modelling, better diagnostics, highly specialised skills, and the ability to test ideas across different machines and research environments.

Why This Matters for the UK

For the UK, the agreement reinforces its ambition to remain one of the world’s leading fusion nations.

UKAEA operates at the centre of Britain’s fusion ecosystem and has decades of experience running major experimental facilities, including the Mega Amp Spherical Tokamak Upgrade (MAST Upgrade) at Culham. The UK is also pursuing the Spherical Tokamak for Energy Production (STEP) programme, which aims to develop a prototype fusion power plant in Nottinghamshire.

The partnership with PPPL supports that wider national strategy. It strengthens links between researchers, gives UK scientists access to expertise and infrastructure in the United States, and helps align the UK with one of the most advanced fusion research communities in the world.

But the opportunity is not only scientific. Fusion could become a major industrial sector, with supply chains spanning advanced manufacturing, robotics, materials, cryogenics, digital engineering, artificial intelligence, high performance computing and precision instrumentation. For the UK, the challenge is to ensure that research leadership translates into industrial capability, jobs, investment and export potential.

The workforce element of the agreement is therefore important. Fusion will require a specialist talent pipeline across physics, engineering, computer science, construction, regulation and plant operation. Staff exchanges and educational cooperation can help build the skills base needed for a future commercial sector.

A Strategic Signal from Washington and London

The fact that the agreement builds on The King’s Address to Congress gives it diplomatic weight. It signals that fusion is not just a long-term scientific pursuit, but as part of the next phase of UK-US strategic cooperation.

Energy security has moved to the centre of geopolitical thinking. The war in Ukraine, supply chain shocks, and the volatility of fossil fuel markets, have all reinforced the need for resilient domestic energy systems. At the same time, the race for leadership in clean technologies has become more competitive.

Fusion sits at the intersection of these priorities. It is a climate technology, an energy security technology and a high value industrial technology. Countries that lead in fusion will not only shape future electricity generation; they may also control parts of a major new global supply chain.

For the UK, alignment with the United States offers scale and strategic depth. For the United States, the UK brings a long-established fusion research base, specialist expertise and a serious commitment to developing commercial fusion pathways. The partnership gives both countries a stronger platform from which to influence the future direction of the technology.

Executive Director of Plasma Science and Fusion Operations at UKAEA, Fulvio Militello said the organisation’s mission is to use its expertise through international partnerships to help deliver sustainable fusion energy.

“UKAEA has decades of expertise operating world leading fusion facilities and solving complex fusion challenges,” he said.

“This agreement with PPPL confirms the positive working relationship between the US and UK fusion communities. We look forward to combining our expertise to help solve some of fusion’s toughest challenges.”

Associate Laboratory Director for Strategy and Partnerships and Deputy Chief Research Officer at PPPL, Laura Berzak Hopkins said the agreement would help both institutions accelerate their shared mission.

“PPPL and UKAEA have each led groundbreaking, flagship fusion experiments,” she said.

“This strategic partnership allows us to unite our capabilities and deliver on our shared mission of bringing fusion from the lab to the grid. It is through global partnerships like this that PPPL amplifies its impact and pushes the boundaries of fusion science.”

Collaboration Will Decide the Pace of Progress

The agreement comes at an important point for fusion. Private investment has grown, national programmes have expanded and governments are increasingly looking at fusion as part of long-term energy planning. Yet the sector still faces hard questions about cost, timescales, regulation and commercial viability.

That makes international collaboration essential. The next phase of fusion development will depend on whether leading laboratories can share knowledge quickly, train enough skilled people and connect scientific progress with engineering delivery.

The PPPL UKAEA agreement should therefore be seen as more than a symbolic partnership. It is part of the infrastructure needed to turn fusion from a scientific aspiration into a practical energy technology.

If the UK and America can combine their research strengths, industrial capacity and political commitment, they will be better placed to shape the future of fusion power.

The prize is not only cleaner energy, but leadership in one of the defining technologies of the next century.

Against this backdrop, today the Government has announced a new expansion of cooperation with French authorities aimed at reducing Channel crossings. Under a new UK-France agreement, two specialist French police units comprising 125 officers and reservists have been deployed to Northern France to disrupt launch attempts and target people-smuggling networks. The initiative forms part of a wider package that includes enhanced surveillance, intelligence sharing and increased funding for French enforcement operations.

Small Boat Arrivals Since Brexit

The issue of small boat arrivals has become closely linked to Britain’s post-Brexit immigration arrangements.

Before leaving the European Union, the UK participated in the Dublin Regulation system, which allowed asylum seekers to be returned to the first EU country in which they were registered. Following Brexit, the UK ceased to be part of that framework. The loss of these return arrangements created an incentive for migrants to reach Britain by irregular routes.

The Government has centred its response around Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s pledge to “smash the gangs” responsible for facilitating Channel crossings. Efforts have focused on international law enforcement cooperation, disrupting smuggling networks and increasing removals.

The data suggests some progress, although arrivals remain historically high. The above chart shows cumulative annual small boat arrivals rising sharply after 2020. While both 2024 and 2025 recorded fewer arrivals than the peak year of 2022, total crossings remain far above the levels seen before Brexit. Annual arrivals that numbered in the hundreds during 2018 and 2019 have become measured in tens of thousands during the 2020s.

Government figures released alongside this week’s announcement state that nearly 70,000 people have been removed from the UK since the 2024 election, while disruption activity against smuggling gangs has increased substantially. Ministers argue that enhanced cooperation with France has already prevented thousands of crossing attempts.

Calls for a Different Approach

The political debate extends beyond enforcement.

Yesterday, Leader of the Liberal Democrats Ed Davey renewed calls for closer integration with Europe, including rejoining the Single Market and restoring participation in arrangements similar to the Dublin system.

Speaking to Politics UK, Daisey Cooper, Deputy Leader of the Liberal Democrats said:

“It was the Conservatives and Nigel Farage who plunged our immigration system into chaos by ripping up our returns agreement with EU countries. That’s why people are coming across the Channel in small boats.

Our new partnership with Europe would bring more control to Britain’s borders by giving us a returns agreement with every EU country, stopping dangerous small boat crossings by ending the pull factor created by the Conservatives and Farage.”

The proposal reflects a broader argument that effective border management requires formal cooperation with European partners rather than relying primarily on enforcement measures.

The International Refugee System

The current asylum system is rooted in the aftermath of the Second World War.

The United Nations adopted the Refugee Convention in 1951. The agreement emerged partly from lessons learned during the 1930s and 1940s, when many people fleeing persecution, including Jewish refugees escaping Nazi Germany, struggled to find countries willing to admit them.

The Convention established the principle that individuals should be able to seek protection from persecution and should not be returned to places where they face serious danger. It also limited the ability of states to refuse consideration of asylum claims solely through numerical caps or quotas.

Over time, governments seeking to reduce irregular migration have increasingly focused on preventing asylum seekers from reaching their territory in the first place, through visa requirements, carrier sanctions, offshore processing proposals and strengthened border controls.

Systemic Contradictions

This tension between border enforcement and asylum rights now sits at the centre of political debates across Europe and North America. In Britain, some right-wing politicians have argued that the UK should consider withdrawing from or reforming international legal frameworks such as the European Convention on Human Rights and related agreements. Supporters of these proposals argue that they would provide greater control over immigration policy, while opponents contend that such frameworks remain important safeguards for refugees and human rights.

As small boat crossings continue to dominate public debate, the challenge facing policymakers remains balancing border security, international obligations and public confidence in the immigration system. The latest UK-France agreement represents the Government’s latest attempt to address one part of that challenge, but the longer-term debate over how Britain manages asylum and migration is unlikely to disappear.

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

You can buy your copy here.

Photo Credit: David Dixon

Dr Rosie Godeseth

Medical Director, Genomics Ltd

Speaking at the UKAI and Curia Healthcare and Life Sciences Parliamentary Showcase, Dr Rosie Godeseth highlighted how polygenic risk scores, artificial intelligence and large-scale health data could help the NHS identify disease risk earlier.

Dr Rosie Godeseth, Medical Director at Genomics Ltd, a UK-headquartered TechBio company founded in 2014, used her remarks at the UKAI and Curia Healthcare and Life Sciences Parliamentary Showcase in Parliament to set out how innovation in genomics could support one of the central ambitions of the NHS 10 Year Health Plan: moving from sickness to prevention.

A clinician by background, with higher specialist training in cardiology, Dr Godeseth explained how Genomics uses large-scale genetic and health data, artificial intelligence (AI) and proprietary analytics to accelerate drug discovery and support disease prevention. Her presentation focused on the potential of polygenic risk scores to identify people at higher risk of common diseases years before symptoms appear.

Genomics Ltd has built the world’s largest harmonised genotype-phenotype data resource, with over 40,000 genome-wide association studies, and is the exclusive polygenic risk score provider for Our Future Health, calculating scores for up to five million volunteers. Its Health Insights product is the first UKCA-marked, MHRA-registered PRS product of its kind.

Predicting risk before disease develops

Dr Godeseth began by explaining that common diseases are not usually caused by one single genetic mutation. Instead, polygenic risk reflects the combined effect of millions of small variations in a person’s DNA, which together can increase or decrease their likelihood of developing disease.

She used cardiovascular disease as a central example. Heart disease remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the UK, and Dr Godeseth highlighted the significant financial burden it places on both the NHS and the wider economy. Modelling based on UK Biobank data suggests that PRS could identify 1.9 million additional individuals as high-risk for cardiovascular disease beyond those currently found through standard tools, preventing approximately 45,300 cardiovascular events over ten years and saving the NHS over £235 million. She argued that polygenic risk scores can help identify people with a hidden high genetic risk of cardiovascular disease, including individuals who may not otherwise know they are at greater risk.

For example, she explained that a 45-year-old man with a high polygenic risk score for coronary artery disease shares the same risk level as a typical 65-year-old but 15 to 20 years ahead of his actual age. The implication is significant: identifying this risk early allows for timely, evidence-based interventions like statins, shifting the focus from treating developed disease to preventing it entirely.

Improving existing clinical tools

Dr Godeseth was clear that polygenic risk scores are not intended to replace existing clinical judgement or tools. Instead, they can strengthen them.

She said that adding genetics and polygenic risk scores to established clinical tools such as QRISK or PREVENT can improve identification of people at risk. This has been validated prospectively: the GENVASC study, a real-world NHS Health Check cohort followed for nearly eight years, found that adding PRS to QRISK2 increased detection sensitivity in 40–54-year-olds by 47.7%. Both the European Society of Cardiology (2025) and the American Heart Association (2022) have endorsed the clinical utility of PRS in cardiovascular risk prediction. Dr Godeseth also highlighted that PRS does more than identify risk, it guides treatment. According to the ESC Scientific Statement, statins are substantially more effective in high-PRS individuals, delivering approximately 44% relative cardiovascular risk reduction in the top PRS decile compared with approximately 24% in lower strata.

Genomics has tested this approach through the HEART clinical trial in NHS primary care in the North East of England, examining the clinical utility and feasibility of adding polygenic risk scores. Dr Godeseth said the work was useful for both clinicians and patients. It led GPs to make a different clinical decision in 13% of cases with 5.2% of participants were reclassified upward across the NICE 10% statin eligibility threshold. Patients responded positively: 98.8% found the test personally useful, 96.4% found it easy to understand, and no additional genetic counselling was required.

From evidence to scale

Dr Godeseth also explained that Genomics’ Health Insights product has been through regulation as a medical device and is the first UKCA-marked, MHRA-registered PRS product of its kind, approved for four disease areas: cardiovascular disease, prostate cancer, breast cancer and type 2 diabetes. Genomics is already active in the private sector, is the exclusive PRS provider for Our Future Health, partners to leading UK healthcare providers Bupa and Spire Healthcare and is in discussions with the NHS about supporting the 10 Year Health Plan’s prevention agenda. The NHS Plan itself commits to rolling out PRS universally and creating a new Genomics Population Health Service.

However, her central challenge was not whether the science exists. It was why technologies with regulatory approval; evidence of earlier prediction and clear potential actions are still difficult to scale.

Three barriers to preventive healthcare

Dr Godeseth identified three major barriers.

The first was financial. Prevention and prediction are often expected to compete with budgets designed to treat people who are already unwell. In practice, this means preventive innovation may be competing against immediate sickness and acute pressures, even when earlier intervention could reduce future demand.

The second barrier was evaluation. Many healthcare evidence frameworks are designed around diagnostic tools, where the result is often binary: disease is present or it is not. Prediction is different. It deals in probability and future risk. Dr Godeseth argued that if evaluation models remain built around diagnostics, they may struggle to capture the value of predictive technologies.

The third barrier was infrastructure. Genetic data is different from many other forms of health data because it is static. It can be collected once and used throughout a person’s life, not only for prevention but for multiple points in an individual’s lifetime, for example for treatment selection during disease, or pharmacogenomics to guide medication choice. Yet healthcare infrastructure is still largely designed around episodic care, not lifelong use of genomic information.

Building a preventive NHS

Dr Godeseth’s message was that genomics is ready to play a much larger role in healthcare, but the system around it must change. If the NHS is to move from reactive treatment to prevention, it will need funding models that reward earlier intervention, evaluation frameworks suited to prediction, and infrastructure capable of using genetic information safely across a person’s lifetime.

Across seven common diseases, research published in Nature Communications has shown that PRS-guided screening could reduce premature deaths in high-risk groups by 23.3%. Yet there is a risk that proven, deployable technology is held back while the system waits for next-generation AI and multi-omic tools that remain years from clinical readiness. Deploying what works today builds the infrastructure on which future innovations will depend.

Her remarks reinforced a wider theme of the showcase: innovation is already here. The challenge now is to reform the structures that determine whether it can reach patients at scale. Patients who could be identified and helped today should not continue to be missed while the system debates what comes next.

Much to the frustration of successive inhabitants of Number 10, Sir Tony Blair has never been a passive observer of the Labour Party’s direction. But his latest intervention goes further than a routine warning from a former Prime Minister. In his 5,000-word essay, The Labour Party Is Playing With Fire Over Its Future and the Future of the Country, Blair argues that Labour is in danger not simply because of poor polling, internal nervousness, or questions over Keir Starmer’s leadership, but because it lacks a sufficiently clear governing project for a radically changed world.

His argument is blunt: Labour cannot solve its problem by changing leader, shifting tone or finding a more persuasive communications strategy. The deeper issue, he says, is that the party has not properly answered the question of what Britain needs now. In his view, leadership speculation is secondary. Policy must come first.

That matters because Tony Blair’s intervention arrives at a moment when Labour is facing pressure on multiple fronts. Reform UK is attempting to define the argument on immigration, national identity, and political insurgency. The Greens are pressing from the left on climate, public spending and redistribution. The Conservatives remain damaged but are searching for space on tax, welfare and security. Labour, Blair argues, risks being left as “Just Labour” – a party in office, but without a sufficiently distinctive project for national renewal.

The core warning: Labour needs a project

The most important part of Tony Blair’s argument is not any single policy recommendation. It is his claim that successful governments begin with an idea of the country they want to build. He argues that Labour’s current problem is not primarily one of personality, values or presentation, but the absence of a coherent analysis of how the world is changing and what that means for government.

This is a familiar Blairite theme, but it lands differently in 2026. Britain is no longer debating politics in the relatively settled conditions of the late 1990s. It is facing weak productivity, high public demand for services, stretched public finances, an ageing population, increased defence pressures, questions over the future of the Union, the consequences of Brexit and a fast-accelerating technological revolution.

Blair’s point is that a government cannot simply manage these pressures. It must shape them. That is why he repeatedly returns to the idea of “ballast” – the need for leaders to have enough intellectual and strategic weight not to be blown around by daily political storms. In the Times Radio interview, he argued that before Labour thinks about changing leader, it must first work out the right policy direction for government.

This is also why Tony Blair is dismissive of the idea that politics can be reduced to better messaging. The implication of his essay is that communication follows conviction. Without a project, there is nothing meaningful to communicate.

Artificial intelligence changes the scale of the challenge

The most future facing part of Blair’s intervention is his focus on artificial intelligence (AI). He describes AI as the defining technological revolution of the age, comparing its scale to the Industrial Revolution. His argument is that government should not just regulate AI or encourage more innovation. He suggests the whole state must be reorganised around the opportunities and risks of this transformation.

This is where Tony Blair’s critique becomes most relevant to the wider policy debate. For years, British politics has treated technology as an important sector. Blair is arguing that this is no longer enough. AI will reshape health, education, welfare, defence, productivity, public administration, and national security. Any government that treats it as a niche area of industrial policy will be too slow.

For Labour, Blair argues that the party should articulate that to make the state more effective, it must show how technology can change the way the state works. That means moving beyond pilot schemes, announcements, and digital strategies. It means asking how AI can reduce waiting times, support teachers, detect fraud, personalise training, improve productivity, and enable earlier intervention in public services.

For Blair, this is the core test of modern government.

Energy and Net Zero: the most controversial challenge

The most politically sensitive part of Blair’s intervention is his argument on energy. He says the UK should prioritise cheap energy and electrification over accelerated Net Zero targets, arguing that Britain cannot impose major costs on consumers and businesses while larger emitters continue to prioritise affordability and energy security.

In his Times Radio interview, Blair was explicit that he would advise Sir Keir Starmer to rethink Ed Miliband’s green energy targets. He stressed that he was not rejecting clean energy or denying climate change but argued that Britain must be realistic about its contribution to global emissions and the need for affordable power in an AI driven economy.

This goes to the heart of Labour’s governing tension. The party has made clean energy central to its economic and climate agenda. Blair’s warning is that if the pursuit of clean power is seen to increase costs, weaken competitiveness or constrain growth, it could become politically vulnerable.

The wider implication is that Net Zero politics is entering a new phase. The question is no longer whether the UK should decarbonise, but how quickly, at what cost, and with what impact on industry, households and national competitiveness. Blair is pushing Labour to confront that trade off directly.

This debate is also complicated by scrutiny of the Tony Blair Institute’s own links to fossil fuel producing states. Critics have pointed to the Institute’s past work with Saudi Arabia and Azerbaijan, including its paid advisory role around COP29 in Baku, where OCCRP reported that 12 TBI advisers were listed as part of Azerbaijan’s national delegation. The Guardian has also reported that Blair’s Net Zero interventions have invited renewed questions about the Institute’s donors and relationships with “petrostates”.

That does not, in itself, invalidate Blair’s argument on energy security, but it does mean his call for more North Sea oil and gas will be read by opponents not only as a policy intervention, but as part of a wider debate about influence, credibility and climate politics.

Welfare, work and the fiscal state

Blair also challenges Labour on welfare and pensions. He argues that rising incapacity and disability benefit spending is unsustainable, particularly if the UK is also expected to increase defence spending, invest in infrastructure and maintain public services. He also describes the pension triple lock as unaffordable in the long-term.

In his Times Radio interview, he pointed to the growth in working age incapacity and disability claims, especially where mental health is a major factor. His argument was not that government should abandon those in need, but that no serious state can ignore the fiscal and social consequences of millions of people being outside the labour market.

This is politically difficult territory for Labour. Welfare reform can quickly be framed as punitive. But Blair’s intervention suggests Labour cannot build a credible growth strategy without addressing labour market participation, prevention, mental health support, and incentives to work.

The challenge is to develop reform that is both compassionate and credible. That means distinguishing between those who cannot work, those who could work with the right support, and those trapped by a system that does too little to help people back into employment.

The Radical Centre as Labour’s escape route

Blair’s proposed answer is the “Radical Centre”. In his definition, the centre is where policy comes before politics. It is the space where government starts by asking what the right answer is, then builds the political argument around it.

This is the key to understanding the essay. Tony Blair is telling Labour to not be timid. He calls for it to be more radical, but in a way that is disciplined, evidence led and focused on delivery. His criticism of both left and right is that each can be radical without being practical. His criticism of the centre is that it too often becomes practical without being radical.

The opportunity for Labour is to reoccupy the centre ground. Tony Blair argues it has a supply problem, not a demand problem. The warning is that voters will not reward a centre ground defined merely by caution, managerialism or avoidance of controversy.

What this means for Starmer’s government

The immediate political meaning of Blair’s intervention is that Labour’s internal debate is likely to sharpen. His essay gives intellectual cover to those at Cabinet arguing for a more pro-business, reformist, technology driven and fiscally disciplined agenda. It also challenges those who believe Labour’s answer should be to move left on tax, spending, welfare and climate.

For the Prime Minister, the danger is that Blair’s critique reinforces the perception that the Government has not yet fully defined itself. But it also offers a possible route forward: make growth the organising principle, treat AI as a whole government transformation, be honest about energy costs, reform welfare over time, and build a stronger strategic relationship with both America and Europe.

The deeper point is that Labour cannot rely indefinitely on the collapse of Conservative credibility. It must earn a second term through delivery and definition. Blair’s warning is that without a governing project, Labour will be shaped by its opponents, its factions and the pressures of office.

His intervention may frustrate parts of the Labour Party. But it asks a serious question: in an age of technological disruption, economic anxiety, and geopolitical competition, is Labour offering a programme equal to the scale of the moment?

For Blair, the answer is not ‘yet’. The significance of the essay is that it challenges Labour to decide whether it wants simply to survive in government, or to use power to reshape the country. The question for Keir Starmer is whether he has any time left in which to deliver?

All eyes have been on Sir Keir Starmer since he sacked Former Foreign Office Chief Sir Olly Robbins last Thursday 16th May. 

This came after a Guardian investigation revealed that despite concerns being raised about Mandelson during his security vetting, the Foreign Office went ahead with his appointment. 

Having been announced as the UK’s ambassador to the US in December 2024, Peter Mandelson was formally appointed as US ambassador on 10th February 2025. However, he was sacked in September last year over his links to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. 

Over the past week, the Prime Minister has been facing calls to resign over claims he misled MPs when he told them that “full due process” had been followed – a claim 10 Downing Street strongly denies. 

Monday: Starmer addresses MPs

In a statement to MPs on Monday afternoon, Starmer said he takes “responsibility” for appointing Peter Mandelson, and that he shouldn’t have taken that decision. 

Explaining the timeline of events, he said he became aware that the Foreign Office granted Mandelson Developed Vetting clearance against the recommendations of the UK’s Security Vetting (UKSV) agency “for the first time” on Tuesday 14th April. 

He said: “I should have had [this information] a long time ago.” 

Regarding why Mandelson was appointed before security vetting had been completed, he said: “For a direct ministerial appointment, it was usual for security vetting to happen after the appointment but before starting in post.” He has since changed this process. 

He also explained that while UKSV’s decision is binding for many government departments, for the foreign office, appointment decisions are ultimately at their own discretion. The Prime Minister has now suspended these powers. 

Continuing his statement, Starmer said it was “absolutely unforgivable” that Sir Olly had let the then-Foreign Secretary David Lammy sign a statement that developed vetting clearance had been granted. 

He said had he known about UKSV’s recommendations, he would not have appointed Peter Mandelson.

Sir Adrian Fulford has now been appointed to lead a review into security vetting. 

Closing his statement, the PM called these events “incredible” and “beggars belief” – statements greeted with laughter by the House. 

Leader of the opposition Kemi Badenoch claimed Sir Keir had breached the ministerial code in not revealing this information “at the earliest opportunity” – this would have been during last week’s Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday 15th April. 

Putting six questions to the PM, she asked whether he would stand by his previous assertion while in opposition that a prime minister should resign if they mislead the house. 

Meanwhile, leader of the opposition Sir Ed Davey accused the PM of blaming his officials, asking why he asked “so few questions personally about the vetting process himself”. 

Both he and Green Party Leader Zack Polanski called on Sir Keir to resign. 

Reform UK MP Lee Anderson alongside Your Party MP Zarah Sultana were both made to leave the House after accusing the PM of lying. 

Tuesday morning: Robbins’ response 

Speaking to Emily Thornberry’s Foreign Affairs Committee, Sir Olly said there was an “atmosphere of pressure” from No. 10 over Peter Mandelson’s vetting.

Thornberry opened the meeting by telling him to “feel freer to give fuller answers to us” than he had at his previous appearance before the Committee on 3rd November 2025. “You clearly told us the truth, but you only told us part of the truth,” she said. 

Robbins accused No.10 of taking “a generally dismissive attitude” to Mandelson’s vetting clearance in January last year, saying: “The focus was on getting Mandelson to Washington quickly.” 

He said that when he arrived in post on 20th January, “there was already a very, very strong expectation coming from number ten that he needed to be in post and in America as quickly as possible”. 

By this point, Peter Mandelson’s name had already been submitted to the King as a nomination and the PM had announced his appointment. He said that agrément (the formal process by which the host country accepts the appointment) had also been obtained.

“Throughout January honestly, my office, the foreign secretary’s office were under constant pressure. There was an atmosphere of constant chasing,” the former foreign office chief said, with very frequent phone calls asking, “has this been delivered yet?”. 

When questioned by Emily Thornberry over whether there was any evidence of this pressure, he said he was sure there were phone calls showing contact between his office and the No. 10’s private office, but that there were no emails. 

In response, Thornberry highlighted the need for records “to show the extent of pressure the foreign office was being put under by No.10.” 

When pressed on why he didn’t know more about the contents of the vetting decision, Sir Olly explained that while he was told it was a “borderline” case, he’s “never seen a UKSV document”. He also declined to confirm whether anything had been identified that wasn’t already in the public realm. 

He maintained that vetting was completed “to the normal high standard” and that “whilst there was an atmosphere of pressure, the department rigorously followed process […] despite some in government never believing it was a process we needed to follow”. 

In response to a question from Sir John Wittingdale MP, he also confirmed that “it would have damaged” relations with the US to pull Mandelson as ambassador at that stage. 

Alongside this, he revealed that in March 2025 he was asked to “potentially” find Lord Matthew Doyle, the PM’s director of communications, a position as an ambassador. 

Tuesday afternoon: MPs respond 

Downing Street denied Robbins’ claims of an “atmosphere of pressure” and “dismissive attitude” towards Mandelson’s vetting.

In an emergency debate called by the Conservatives on Tuesday afternoon, Kemi Badenoch said the Prime Minister “personally decided to appoint a serious, known national security risk” due to his known relationship with Epstein and links to Russia and China. 

Accusing the PM of using Sir Olly as a “human shield”, she said: “The idea that it is No. 10 who are the victims of others not following due process is quite frankly laughable.” 

She backed SNP MP Stephen Flynn’s call for a no confidence vote, adding: “This Prime Minister has put the country’s national security at risk. He must take responsibility, it is time for him to go.” 

The Lib Dems accused the PM of trying to “appease Trump” with Mandelson’s appointment, while Reform said he is trying to “dump the entire scandal on one official”. Meanwhile the Green Party said the PM showed “totally unacceptable” “wilful ignorance” over the appointment.  

In response, Darren Jones, Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, said: “The government has been and remains committed to keeping the House informed.”

Acknowledging that appointing Mandelson was the “wrong” decision, he added: “I’m here however to account for the government’s accountability on the process that followed.” 

Mr Jones also said that the government is working “at pace” to publish the remaining documents related to Mandelson’s appointment, as required by February’s humble address. 

Wednesday: PMQs 

PMQs were, as expected, dominated by questions over Mandelson’s appointment. 

The PM confirmed that Matthew Doyle was considered for an ambassadorial appointment – as is a normal conversation when people leave a position, according to Starmer. But, he said, nothing came of this conversation – and Doyle himself had come out on Tuesday saying he hadn’t known of any such conversations before then. 

In her six questions to the PM, Kemi Badenoch pressed Sir Keir on whether he stands by his statement that “full due process” was followed in Mandelson’s appointment, referring to Robbins’ testimony of a dismissive approach from No.10. 

Reiterating her concerns about national security, she said there is “no way” she would have appointed someone with Mandelson’s reputation, asking the PM “what planet” he was on over claims that Mandelson was given access to classified briefings before being cleared.  

Badenoch also said Robbins’ dismissal was unfair – an opinion shared by the Green Party’s Ellie Chowns – and asked the PM to “take responsibility and go”. 

Starmer maintained that due process was followed, and that Sir Olly’s testimony that he hadn’t shared his decision with No. 10 “puts to bed all the allegations levelled at [him] by those opposite in relation to dishonesty”. 

He also reiterated that he was unaware of UKSV’s recommendations. Calling this a “very serious error in judgement,” he said: “Nothing is going to distract me from delivering for our country.” 

Thursday: Back to the select committee

Thursday morning saw Cat Little, Permanent Secretary of the Cabinet Office (the department’s most senior civil servant) giving evidence to Dame Emily Thornberry’s Select Committee. 

In her evidence, she echoed the PM in saying that “due process was followed.”

Referring to Sir Olly’s claims of pressure, she said that while putting together the documents to be published under the humble address: “I’ve not seen any documentation that would formally confirm that level of pressure”. 

In regards to the vetting summary, she told the committee she asked Sir Olly for a summary of UKSV’s recommendations, but “it was made clear to me that that information would not be forthcoming.” 

Requesting this information directly from security officials, she received it on 25th March but sought legal advice about handling sensitive documents before deciding to share them with the PM on 14th April. 

A lack of records has been a frequent issue throughout this saga, and it continued when Ms Little confirmed there was no formal record of the meeting in which Starmer decided to move forward with Mandelson’s appointment – even though “it is normal” to do so. 

Ms Little’s versions of events also seemed to suggest – in contrast to Sir Olly’s – that the Cabinet Office advised in favour of vetting Mandelson, not that this was unnecessary. 

Beyond the walls of the Select Committee, Thursday also saw an increase in murmurings about the Prime Minister’s future, with political reporters noting unrest among both Labour backbenchers and Cabinet ministers. 

What next?

Friday’s headlines were not dominated by the scandal – much to the PM’s relief. Rather, attention has turned to the failure of the Assisted Dying Bill in the House of Lords. 

However, the row is far from over. On Tuesday, we heard from Morgan McSweeney – the PM’s former Chief of Staff, who resigned over Mandelson’s appointment in February, taking “full responsibility”. 

He, alongside the Foreign Office’s Chief Property and Security Officer Ian Collard and former Foreign Office top civil servant Sir Philip Barton, have all been compelled to give evidence to the Select Committee. 

And of course the polls have opened this Thursday 7th May at 7am, which will likely put further pressure on the PM’s survival. 

Featured Image Credit: Prime Minister’s Office / Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

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.

Jim Steyer

Founder – Common Sense Media

Warning that AI could replicate and amplify the harms of social media for children, Common Sense Media founder Jim Steyer makes the case that California’s new youth AI safety push could set standards that Britain ignores at its peril. AI, and the risks it poses to our kids, knows no borders. The same chatbots that have sometimes encouraged American children to harm themselves or others are readily available to British children. Our children need and deserve a coordinated effort to make AI safe for kids and teens that matches the power of the technology itself.

We’ve Seen This Movie Before

Having lived through the rise of social media, we know what can happen when governments give tech companies the green light to pursue innovation at any cost. For more than a decade, these companies assured parents, teachers, and policymakers that their products were safe – even beneficial – for children. But the industry continued to build platforms that kept kids staring at their screens, ceaselessly scrolling and helpless to look away. The result has been an unprecedented mental health crisis from which an entire generation is still reeling.

If we choose to repeat the past with AI, we risk repeating that mistake on a larger scale. Unlike social media, AI products do not simply feed users preexisting material; they converse, offer dangerous “advice”, and, in some cases, present themselves as friends, confidants, and even romantic partners. For developing young minds, this risks blurring the line between connection and code, between fact and AI-generated fiction. Nearly three in four teens have already turned to AI companion chatbots, which research shows are not safe for anyone under 18.

California Leads the Way

As this crisis grows too big to ignore, lawmakers, advocates, and even some in the tech industry have decided to act, perhaps most notably in California, the very heart of the AI industry. Last year, we helped enact a groundbreaking age assurance law in California and social media warning label laws in New York and California. In October, we proposed a ballot initiative called the California Kids AI Safety Act to build on that success in 2026 by preparing and protecting kids for the AI era. In December, OpenAI filed a competing initiative to block our effort.

We refused to let that stop us. When 80–90 per cent of California voters, regardless of their party affiliation, demand stronger AI protections for our kids, we have a responsibility to get that done. Rather than confuse voters with competing measures, we decided to work together to enact strong protections for kids, teens, and families.

So Common Sense wrote, and OpenAI agreed to support the Parents & Kids Safe AI Act, which, if enacted, will be the strongest youth AI safety measure in the nation’s history. At this pivotal moment for AI, we can’t make the same mistake we did with social media, when companies used our children as guinea pigs and helped fuel a youth mental health crisis in the U.S. and around the world. Kids and teens need AI guardrails now. That’s why we will pursue every avenue available, whether through the state legislature or via a direct vote from Californians at the ballot box, to see this through. We have hope that when California acts, the world will pay attention.

What the Parents & Kids Safe AI Act Would Do

The California AI safety initiative is a comprehensive plan to protect kids and teens. The measure requires AI companies to know whether a user is a child to treat them accordingly. Privacy-preserving age assurance technology would ensure that AI operates with child-protective settings for all users under 18.

The initiative sets clear boundaries for the treatment of young users. It prohibits AI companies from targeting children with advertising or monetising their private data, prevents AI systems from generating material promoting suicide or self-harm and cracks down on AI systems that manipulate children by fostering emotional dependency or pretending to be “real”.

On top of requiring robust child safeguards, the measure gives parents real agency in keeping their kids safe. Under the Parents & Kids Safe AI Act, companies would have to provide easy-to-use parental controls and parental alerts if their kids show signs of self-harm. In a digital world that has long left parents on the sidelines, this measure takes a key step toward course-correction.

Finally, the initiative introduces something that has been missing from the AI industry for too long: accountability. Companies would have to undergo independent safety audits and conduct annual risk assessments – and, should they fail to meet these obligations, the state attorney general would have the power to hold them financially accountable. Every other product intended for kids, from toys to car seats to pyjamas, must meet strict safety standards before hitting store shelves. AI should be no different.

Why it Matters Beyond California

Youth AI safety is overwhelmingly popular among voters across the political spectrum, and not only in California. We intend to see the Parents & Kids Safe AI Act through in our state, not only to protect more than eight million children, but to serve as an example for governments across the globe. When one major jurisdiction sets strong, effective rules, others are more likely to adopt them. Companies are not inclined to build entirely different systems for different markets. So when kids in Los Angeles are protected from unsafe AI chatbots, similar protections are more likely to reach kids in London.

We have a narrow window to get this right. AI is moving faster than any technology of our lifetimes, and young people are among its earliest and most enthusiastic adopters. Leaders on both sides of the Atlantic have a shared responsibility to ensure that technology empowers, not endangers, the next generation. It is on all of us to forge the digital future our children deserve.

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

You can buy your copy here.

Photo Credit: Shutterstock

Delivering the Attlee Foundation Lecture at King’s College London, former Conservative Prime Minister, Sir John Major offered a grave but carefully argued reflection on the condition of British democracy, the health of the international order, and the risks of political complacency at a moment of deep public disenchantment.

He began by addressing the apparent incongruity of a former Conservative Prime Minister delivering a lecture in honour of Clement Attlee. In truth, he suggested, there was nothing strange about it at all. Attlee, Major said, deserved admiration not only for the scale of his achievement, but for his courage, public spirit, and willingness to put country before party. The NHS, his wider commitment to public service, and his example of serious political leadership all still matter today.

That opening was about more than historical courtesy. It set up one of the defining themes of the lecture – that democratic politics works best when opponents treat one another as opponents, not enemies. Major drew a sharp distinction between mainstream political rivalry, and the politics of grievance and division. The true enemies of democratic parties, he argued, are “populist insurgents” who seek to inflame resentment, exaggerate real social problems, and then blame minorities for them. That, he said plainly, is ugly politics and should have no place in Britain.

Mainstream politics must not lose its nerve

A central argument of the speech was that Britain’s mainstream parties have more in common than they often admit. Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats may differ on philosophy, priority, and policy, but they all broadly want stronger public services, economic wellbeing, secure defence, good housing, flourishing education and decent employment. In a liberal democracy, those are not radical aspirations but basic expectations.

The problem, Major suggested, is that too often those expectations are not being met. That failure is feeding disenchantment, and disenchantment creates danger. When the main democratic parties collectively struggle to command even half of public support in the polls, that is not merely a momentary party-political setback. It is a warning sign.

Major’s message was not that democracy has already failed, but that it cannot be assumed safe simply because it is long established. Around the world, he noted, democracy has been retreating for years, with autocrats steadily weakening democratic protections to entrench their own power. Britain is not immune. If mainstream politics is cast aside too casually, he warned, the space created may not be filled by other democrats.

That was one of the most striking passages in the lecture. Any voter tempted to rejoice at the collapse of Labour, the Conservatives, or the Liberal Democrats, he implied, should think carefully about what might come next. If the old democratic structures fall away, the replacement may be harsher, less accountable, and far less tolerant.

Reform must mean more than rhetoric

Major also turned his attention to the growing overuse of the language of reform.

Politicians often invoke reform to signal seriousness and renewal, but the word itself can conceal as much as it reveals. Reform means change, he said. Change means upheaval. Upheaval provokes opposition.

His instinct was not anti-reform, but sceptical of empty reformism. Before tearing up longstanding systems, politics should first show that it can make progress on the everyday questions that shape people’s lives. He listed a series of practical issues that remain unresolved: whether tax levels deter savings and investment, whether planning rules are blocking housing, whether the benefits system discourages work, whether the triple lock should be better targeted, whether Parliament should take stronger action against the misuse of social media, and how Britain can pay for the armed forces it needs.

“Populists trade on grievance…and then blame those ills on minority groups of a different race or religion. It is ugly politics and it should have no place in our country.”

In other words, there is no shortage of substantive policy work to be done. Yet Major also argued that the political system itself needs attention. Politics, he said, has a “grubby underbelly” and is long overdue for a spring clean.

He questioned whether political funding is being corrupted when large donors, with no obvious qualification beyond wealth, receive honours or privileged access to ministers. Donations, he said, should be capped to guard against undue influence. He rejected the idea of an elected House of Lords, warning that it would challenge the primacy of the Commons and create constitutional confusion rather than improve scrutiny. But he did open the door to a serious debate about the voting system, arguing that first-past-the-post is producing increasingly distorted outcomes as voting patterns fragment.

He also made the case that MPs who defect to another party should be required to face their constituents again. Constitutionally, MPs are elected as individuals. Politically, Major argued, voters choose them as party representatives. On that basis, logic and decency suggest they should seek a renewed mandate if they cross the floor.

A blunt verdict on Brexit

Perhaps the most politically sensitive intervention of the evening came when Major addressed Brexit. To applause from the audience, he said openly that Brexit had failed to deliver on its promises, and that the economic consequences had been serious. The loss of trade and tax revenue, he argued, has done real harm to public finances, public services and living standards.

Unlike the recent intervention by the Mayor of London, Sir Sadiq Khan, [BH1] he stopped short of advocating a return to the European Union in the near future, acknowledging the political and practical barriers. But he was unequivocal that Britain should rebuild its relationship with its European neighbours as quickly and as comprehensively as possible.

This sat within a broader argument about Britain’s strategic position in the world. Leaving the EU, he said, weakened the UK’s ability to operate between the great European and American power centres at precisely the moment when the United States was becoming more distant and more unpredictable.

The international order is fraying

Much of the lecture focused on foreign affairs, and here Major’s tone became darker still. He lamented the erosion of the post-war rules-based system – built in the aftermath of the Second World War through institutions, alliances and habits of co-operation that helped make the world safer, freer and more stable.

The US, in his account, once stood at the heart of that benign order. He spoke warmly of the tradition that ran from Truman and the Marshall Plan through to the close trust he experienced personally with President George H. W. Bush during the first Gulf War. But he argued that this inheritance is now under severe strain.

President Trump’s approach, Major said, has introduced a harsher and more transactional American posture, one driven by slogans of self-interest and marked by tariff increases, hostility towards allies and a more dismissive attitude to Europe. Vice President Vance’s claim that Europe poses a greater threat to freedom than Russia was, Major said, both offensive and absurd.

“If diplomacy, consultation and co-operation break down, we will be moving towards the law of the jungle – and in such a world, no country is safe.”

He was especially critical of the treatment of President Zelensky in Washington, describing the Ukrainian leader as having been ambushed rather than supported. More broadly, Major warned that if diplomacy, consultation and co-operation continue to break down, the world risks moving towards the law of the jungle – a world in which might is right and weaker nations are left exposed to the will of the powerful.

He also used the lecture to question how secure NATO’s guarantees would remain if the United States became less willing to shoulder its traditional responsibilities. Europe, he argued, must become more self-reliant in defence while remaining firmly within NATO. That means higher defence spending, tougher choices, and far closer co-ordination on procurement and military readiness.

Britain must speak honestly to allies

For all his criticism, Major was careful not to suggest that Britain should distance itself from America. The transatlantic alliance, he said, remains essential to British security and intelligence interests. But partnership should not mean deference.

He criticised the growing tendency to tiptoe around President Trump for fear of causing offence. Sovereign nations that behave in that way, he warned, will eventually be treated “not as allies but as subordinates”. Britain should speak truth to the United States when it disagrees – privately, respectfully, but firmly.

That belief in moral seriousness and statecraft was refreshingly articulated throughout the lecture. Britain, he argued, must continue to stand up for what is right, not simply what is expedient.

A guarded optimism for Sir John Major

For all its warnings, the speech did not end in despair. Asked in the Q&A where optimism could still be found, Major pointed to “the young”. They have, he said, been badly treated in many ways – burdened by debt, priced out of housing, and deprived of the stability earlier generations took for granted. Yet they are also more open, less prejudiced, more internationally minded, and more willing to embrace shared action on common problems.

That, for Major, is where hope lies.

His lecture cannot be seen a simple lament for a lost political culture or a fading international order. It was a inspirational call for democratic seriousness – for mainstream politics to recover its sense of service, for Britain to repair trust at home, and for liberal democracies to recover the confidence to defend their values abroad.

Prosperity and democratic stability do not survive on sentiment alone. They require work, honesty, co-operation and courage. If the UK and its allies fail to provide those things, others with darker intentions will be only too ready to fill the void.

This annual Attlee Lecture was organised by The Strand Group and the Attlee Foundation.

The Fusion Strategy, published today by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero alongside the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA), outlines how the Government plans to move fusion from research laboratories to commercial deployment.

Ministers say the strategy will support more than 10,000 jobs by 2030, unlock major private investment and place Britain at the forefront of a global race to harness fusion power – a technology capable of generating vast quantities of clean energy by replicating the processes that power the sun.

The announcement comes amid growing concerns about global energy security and volatility in fossil fuel markets, which ministers argue reinforces the need for domestically generated clean power.

The Government says Britain is now the first country to establish a clear pathway to commercial fusion, creating the policy, investment and regulatory frameworks required to bring the technology to market.

A new phase for Britain’s fusion sector

The strategy builds on £2.5 billion in public investment in fusion research and development confirmed at the most recent Spending Review. It also includes targeted funding to accelerate industrial deployment, including infrastructure, advanced computing and workforce development.

A central element of the fusion plan is the development of the STEP prototype fusion power plant at West Burton in Nottinghamshire, a former coal power station site that will be repurposed for next generation clean energy production.

The Government has announced a £200 million contract for a construction partner to help deliver the plant, with construction expected to begin from 2030 and completion targeted by 2040.

Ministers say the project symbolises the UK’s wider energy transition, with regions historically associated with coal power becoming hubs for the next generation of clean energy technologies.

New market framework for fusion power

The strategy also introduces what the Government describes as a world first market framework for fusion electricity, designed to provide confidence for investors while protecting consumers.

Under the framework, government will develop regulatory and insurance structures tailored specifically to fusion technologies, alongside streamlined planning processes and new safety guidelines.

Officials believe the move will de risk private sector investment and accelerate the commercialisation of fusion technologies.

The global fusion market is expected to be worth up to £12 trillion in the second half of the century, with countries including the United States, China and Japan all investing heavily in research and industrial capacity.

Investment in AI and advanced research

Alongside infrastructure investment, the Government has confirmed funding for a fusion dedicated artificial intelligence supercomputer designed to accelerate research and engineering breakthroughs.

The Sunrise AI supercomputer, developed through a collaboration between UKAEA and the University of Cambridge, will receive £45 million in funding and is expected to become the most powerful computing system in the world specifically designed for fusion modelling.

The system will help scientists simulate plasma behaviour, optimise reactor design and accelerate the development of commercial fusion reactors.

Skills, investment and industry growth

The strategy also sets out plans to expand Britain’s fusion workforce through a £50 million skills and innovation programme aimed at training more than 2,000 people in fusion related disciplines.

This will include apprenticeships, specialist training programmes and the development of regional innovation clusters linked to major fusion research centres.

The Government is also preparing a national fusion investment prospectus intended to attract international investors and supply chain partners.

Alongside this, UKAEA and the global energy technology company Eni have announced plans to establish a joint company focused on advancing fusion technologies, with further details expected in May.

Fusion innovation beyond the energy sector

Research driven by fusion development is already generating wider technological innovation across the UK economy.

UKAEA recently confirmed the creation of three spin out companies, with several more expected in the near future, applying fusion technologies across sectors including medical imaging, advanced robotics, defence technologies and AI assisted engineering.

Officials say these spin offs demonstrate the broader economic value of fusion research beyond electricity generation.

Ministers: Britain can lead the fusion era

Energy Secretary, Ed Miliband said the strategy positions Britain to lead the global transition towards clean and abundant energy.

He said:

“From Nottinghamshire to Cumbria, and from the Oxford Cambridge corridor to South Yorkshire, Britain has long been at the forefront of fusion energy.

“With our Fusion Strategy, we are going further – backing industry, supporting more than 10,000 jobs and paving the way for the ultimate long term energy security solution: clean, virtually limitless energy powered by British ingenuity and determination.”

Science Minister, Lord Vallance said the strategy would strengthen Britain’s position as a global centre for scientific and engineering innovation.

He said:

“We can be proud that Britain will lead the way on research, innovation and skills for a future of limitless fusion energy.

“By backing our fusion industry we are not only securing our future energy independence but also creating the skilled clean energy jobs of the future for British people.”

Industry welcomes government strategy

Industry leaders have broadly welcomed the strategy, saying it provides clarity and investment certainty for the emerging fusion sector.

Dr Tim Bestwick, Group CEO of the UK Atomic Energy Authority, said the organisation supports the Government’s ambition to position Britain as a global hub for commercial fusion technology.

He said UKAEA’s programmes are already progressing key technologies needed for commercial deployment.

Tristram Denton, UK Director of the Fusion Industry Association, said the strategy strengthens Britain’s position within what he described as a “generational industrial opportunity”.

Executives from leading UK fusion companies, including Tokamak Energy and First Light Fusion, also welcomed the announcement, highlighting the UK’s existing research strengths and the importance of government backing for scaling commercial deployment.

Global collaboration on fusion development

The strategy also highlights growing international collaboration on fusion research.

Fusion energy was recently included in the UK US Tech Prosperity Deal, which aims to accelerate joint research between British and American institutions.

A UK US Global Fusion Policy Summit is expected to take place later this year to further develop international co-operation on regulation, investment and technological development.

With the launch of the strategy, ministers say Britain now has the policy framework and industrial foundations required to lead the global race to commercial fusion energy.

That came as a surprise to anyone who had been following the recent AI news emerging from China. Just weeks earlier, a Stanford University report had found that Chinese AI models had “caught up or even pulled ahead” of their American competition. In his New Year’s Address, Xi Jinping boasted about what he called a “transformative 2025 for China’s AI,” describing “breakthrough developments” on the subject. So, who is ahead of who here?

“I know it doesn’t fit into headlines, but this is so much more nuanced than just a simple ‘who’s ahead’,” says Thomas Derksen, a Shanghai-based entrepreneur, influencer and consultant who has covered the Chinese tech world for years. “It really depends on what your metrics are whether you’re looking at open or closed source, for instance.”

Open vs Closed AI Models: Where the US and China Lead

Closed-source AI models are engineered to perform a wide variety of tasks for their users, but their algorithms remain closed off and cannot be altered. “With these models, the Americans are for sure still leading the way with OpenAI, Anthropic and Google,” says Grace Shao, founder and analyst of industry newsletter AI Proem on Substack.

Image: Open AI Logo – Flickr via Trong Khiem Nguyen

“There are specific use cases where the Chinese AIs make some waves, such as in having very advanced video generation abilities,” Shao says, “but the pioneering of these general-purpose models is still being done by the American labs.”

Open-source AI models, however, are a much different story. With their code usually available publicly, developers can alter the workings of the models for their own use cases, particularly relevant when companies want to use the models. “In the end, nobody cares if you or I use the American closed source models to write a poem or get a cooking recipe,” Thomas Derksen says. “What matters is what open-source businesses are making money with- and this is where the Chinese are dominating.”

Why Businesses Are Choosing Chinese AI Models

Chinese AI models have indeed increasingly been favoured in the business world, for instance by global players like Pinterest and Airbnb, who are now using Deepseek open-source models and Alibaba’s Qwen AI respectively. Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky told the BBC the Chinese-made models were simply “good, fast, and cheap.” 

“Are these Chinese models the absolute frontier technology? Probably not yet,” Grace Shao says. “But if a company from a pure business perspective wants a top-notch model in terms of performance but is also cost-conscious, they may well choose a Chinese model.” 

Image: Chinese AI Deepseek – Flickr via Trong Khiem Nguyen

“A lot of companies do just favour Chinese models because they’re so cheap,” Derksen agrees. “Deepseek’s models are roughly on the level of Chat-GPT 5 now,” he says, “but at a fraction of the cost. Especially in markets like Africa or Southeast Asia, many firms just can’t afford the pricey American models, and opt for the Chinese ones.” 

For Derksen, this is a classic Chinese strategy. “Often when Chinese companies see that they might not quite be able to keep up in terms of quality, they bring the cost down,” he says. “And with the conditions on the ground in China, this is easy.”

Powering cheap AI, one windmill at a time

On a cold February morning in the dimly lit train station of Ulanqab, an industrial city in Inner Mongolia province in China’s far north, migrant worker Li vents his frustrations. “They have us building windmills all day out on that bloody steppe,” he grunts. “Sometimes the wind blows so cold I could freeze into an ice block.” Smirking, he points to the AI translation app flickering across his phonescreen. “The big bosses there need our windmills, though.” 

To build their cheap AI models, companies like Deepseek rely on a crucial factor- China’s affordable, seemingly infinite electricity production. “Over the last decade, we have seen a huge rise in Chinese renewable energy solutions,” says Grace Shao. Once largely dependent on coal, the value of China’s green energy sector has doubled between 2022 and 2025, with massive investment into wind and solar power, often in the country’s north. China now has some of the cheapest electricity on the planet.

Image: Power lines in rural Inner Mongolia, China – Julius Buhl

And this cheap, scalable electricity allows Chinese AI-makers to run massive, energy-intensive AI training centers at a lower cost than many Western competitors. Inner Mongolia has become one of the main hubs for this, as the cold steppes are now crowded with windmills that power several state-of-the-art data centers. “The Chinese now have the capacity here, and can thus push the price down,” Shao says.

Meanwhile, the competition in America is struggling in this area. “The US grid is old, and the electricity demand has not changed in decades,” Shao says. “Expanding it now to power the AI datacenters is expensive, and there is only slow progress on unlocking new renewable power sources. This is a kind of bottleneck for the US.” And electricity is not the only area in which China seems to have a leg up these days.

China’s AI Talent Boom and the “Reverse Brain Drain”

For long, observers argued that China was struggling to pioneer new technologies because much of its prime talent headed for Silicon Valley when given the chance. “But that’s the past,” Grace Shao says.

AI-trailblazer Tencent recently hired Vinces Yao, a top researcher who worked on OpenAI’s first AI agents. Several other high-profile engineers who had previously worked in the development of key AI models in the US have recently moved across the Pacific, a trend some have dubbed a “reverse brain drain.”

“Talent is no longer a bottleneck for Chinese AI,” Grace Shao says. “Some people are homegrown, some are engineers returning from the Bay Area- either way, the calibre is very high.”

According to Derksen, this is very much part of Beijing’s plan. “If Xi Jinping declares something a priority as he has done with attracting AI talent, that impacts everyone in China; every university, every province, every city will do their best to fulfil the order,” he says. “The scientists are feeling this, they get resources and support everywhere they go in China, so it’s no surprise that a lot are heading there.”

And then, the cost factor strikes again. “I can essentially get two engineers for the price of one in China,” Thomas Derksen says. “Living costs and salaries are just much lower than in the US. There is an abundance of talent, and the Chinese working culture is still ruthless. They can just get more done in a shorter time.”

As businesses seem to favour Chinese AI powered by cheap electricity and abundant talent, it may seem like Beijing is winning this race easily. But there is one constraint China just can’t seem to shake off.

AI Chips: China’s Biggest Weakness

AI developers rely on specially designed computer microchips to train their AI models. They are incredibly hard to manufacture, and having an outdated chip can cost developers significantly more and delay model development for years. “American NVIDIA and Taiwanese TSMC are still the undisputed number one when it comes to making these chips,” Thomas Derksen says, “and they’re not letting the Chinese access them freely. And that is their biggest problem.” 

Over the past few years, Washington has tightened export restrictions on advanced chips and chipmaking equipment, limiting China’s access to the crucial hardware. In December, Deepseek was accused of illegally training its models on NVIDIA’s Blackwell Chips despite the import ban, an accusation the company denies. “The lack of access to state-of-the-art chips remains the biggest AI bottleneck for China,” Grace Shao says. “It’s the only area where they can’t bring the cost down, at least for now.”

Image: The crucially important AI Chips – Flickr via Tim Reckman

To combat this, China has in return long been pouring billions into manufacturing chips domestically, with the government tapping tech giants Huawei and Alibaba to create alternatives. 

And there have been some successes. In September, Chinese State Media reported that a new chip manufactured domestically by Alibaba can match the performance of Nvidia’s semiconductors while using less energy. 

But aside from these success announcements, the key player remain vague as to how much they have actually progressed.  “It’s a black box, they really don’t want people to know what the status is,” Thomas Derksen says. “But it’s clear Alibaba and Huawei are working like crazy to catch up.” But until they can, Lin Junyuan’s 20% chance statement seems to still have some backing.

Anyone in third place?

While China and the US are racing each other for AI dominance, the rest of the world has been busy too. India, for instance, has been pioneering its own sovereign models, most notably BharatGPT, heavily supported by the government. With a massive domestic market and an abundance of tech talent, Prime Minister Modi has repeatedly stressed his ambition for his country to become the world’s number three when it comes to AI.

Image: Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the AI Impact Summit he hosted in February (Narendra Modi Picture Gallery)

In Europe, Mistral AI has made headlines, with the French startup winning sizeable defense contracts in both Germany and France, as the EU pushes for greater AI independence. 

In China’s backyard, the South Korean government has invested heavily in making its own “fully native” model, aiming to create an AI entirely independent from foreign models.

“The more important AI becomes and the more America and China advance, the more a lot of leaders are realising that they can’t be too dependent on either country,” Shao says. “The fear of AI-exploitation, of being a market while the money is made elsewhere is a real concern.”

But compared to China and the US, the industry seems in its infancy across the board. Bloomberg recently labelled India the “AI world’s most valuable unpaid intern” as the country is stellar at using AI models but still very much struggles at making them. In South Korea, three of the five companies shortlisted to make its “fully native” AI were found to still be using some code from foreign models, with executives saying that a fully decoupled model was “unrealistic.” 

Europe seems even worse off: throughout the AI race, the United States have produced 40 foundation models, while China has developed 15. All of Europe combined has created just three. “And even European prestige projects like Mistral are far away from their American or Chinese counterparts,” Grace Shao says. 

Do Countries Really Need Sovereign AI Models?

But does everyone really need to be building their own AI? “So many resources need to be in place locally to build an AI ecosystem from the bottom up,” Grace Shao says. “Trying to catch up to China or the US will take a long, long time for many countries, and it doesn’t make sense for most.” Instead, she says the conversation should not be framed as a race, but as an opportunity where countries can leverage their own strengths to build parts of their own tech stack, while still leaning on infrastructure led by the two superpowers.

Singapore has for example been courting both American and Chinese labs and attracting talent from both countries, who have then been building data centers in the small city state. Malaysia and Thailand are following a similar strategy. In South Korea, the government has invested $1.2 billion to enhance AI literacy in education after the “native model” disaster, aiming to become a talent hub for the technology. 

In the end, Grace Shao says, many countries can find niches in this. “Outside of Asia, industry-heavy countries like Germany can for instance focus on AI-powered robotics or something like that, while countries in the gulf with an abundance of energy can focus more on utilizing that for AI” she says. “Each economy has its own advantages here.” 

Thomas Derksen believes there also needs to be a change of mentality as well, particularly in Europe. “We need to acknowledge the fact that this technology has come to stay,” he says. “It’s a revolution and we’re in the middle of it. So we might as well get on with it and try to adapt.”

In the end, who’s winning this revolution right now depends on what winning means. The US still leads at the mere performance level. China is racing ahead on cost and scale, while the Americans maintain their biggest advantage, the chips. Meanwhile, for much of the world, the real question may not be who comes first- but where they can get a foot in the door.

Featured Image via The White House / Daniel Torok