Rt Hon Andrew Stephenson CBE

Chair, Curia, Health, Care and Life Sciences Research Group

Following the publication of AI Is Ready. Is the System? report by Curia and UKAI, Chair of Curia’s Health, Care and Life Sciences Research Group and former Minister of State at the Department of Health and Social Care, Andrew Stephenson writes that the NHS is well positioned to lead in AI-driven healthcare, but the challenge has shifted from innovation to implementation.

Across government, the NHS, academia, and industry, there is broad agreement that AI and advanced data science will transform healthcare and life sciences, particularly within the NHS. The science is advancing rapidly. British universities are among the strongest in the world. Our life sciences sector contributes more than £100 billion to the economy and supports hundreds of thousands of skilled jobs.[i] We have longitudinal health records, high GP registration, and a unique ability to link data across the life course. In many respects, we are better positioned than almost any nation, especially considering the advancements in the NHS.

And yet, as these discussions make clear, the central challenge is no longer invention. It is implementation.

From Innovation to Implementation: Why the NHS Must Move Beyond Pilots

Too often, innovation in the NHS remains confined to pilots. Promising technologies are tested, evaluated and praised – and then stall before reaching routine practice. The reasons are not mysterious. They include fragmented procurement, unclear lines of accountability, data governance complexity, workforce pressures, and, at times, a cultural instinct to equate the status quo with safety.

We must challenge that assumption directly. Doing nothing is not risk-free. In a health system and NHS facing rising demand, workforce shortages, and widening inequalities, standing still carries consequences of its own. Innovation, when properly evaluated and safely deployed, is not a threat to patient safety – it is an essential route to improving it.

Aligning NHS Regulation, Infrastructure and Growth to Deliver AI at Scale

Throughout these roundtables, three themes emerged repeatedly.

First, system readiness matters as much as technological capability. AI tools do not deploy themselves. They depend on infrastructure, workforce confidence, digital maturity, and governance that is proportionate rather than paralysing. Building the bridge from innovation to adoption requires effort on both sides.

Second, regulatory reform must strike the right balance. We must be safe, but we must also be fast and trusted. The regulatory framework for medical devices was not designed with adaptive AI in mind. We therefore need approaches that allow continuous monitoring, post-market learning, and clear accountability, without creating unnecessary delay. Businesses need clarity, boards need assurance, and patients need confidence.

Third, we must align economic growth with NHS transformation. Startups and scaleups cannot wait two years for data access while their runway expires. Equally, trusts cannot be expected to underwrite infrastructure without national support. If we want Britain to retain sovereign capability in AI-enabled healthcare, we must ensure that procurement pathways, data environments, and funding models enable responsible domestic innovation to scale.

Prevention and predictive medicine are particularly instructive. The science in genomics and risk stratification is advancing rapidly. Yet our funding structures in the NHS remain weighted toward treating illness rather than anticipating it. If we are serious about shifting from reactive to preventative healthcare, budgetary and accountability frameworks must evolve accordingly.

As Chair of Curia’s Health, Care and Life Sciences Research Group, my focus is on turning policy into practice. It is not enough to announce strategies. We must translate ambition into delivery at trust, system, and national level.

The discussions summarised in this report are candid – but practical. They highlight barriers to the adoption of AI in the NHS, but they also demonstrate appetite for change. Clinicians want tools that give them more time with patients. Innovators want clarity and partnership. Policymakers want solutions that improve outcomes and support growth.

Our task now is to convert shared insight into coordinated action. If we do so, the UK can become not just a leader in AI research, but a leader in responsible, system-wide deployment – improving patient care, strengthening our healthcare and life sciences sectors, and ensuring the NHS remains sustainable for generations to come.

References

[i] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/life-sciences-sector-plan-to-grow-economy-and-transform-nhs

Richard Kilpatrick

Head of Campaigns at the European Movement

News this week that the Government plans to use secondary legislation to dynamically align with certain EU standards has stirred debate. Yet aligning with Europe and evolving Single Market rules is exactly what many UK businesses have been calling for, and secondary legislation is the most flexible way to achieve it. It allows ministers to amend rules where it is in the national interest.

So-called “Henry VIII clauses” are a longstanding feature of the UK’s legislative process, enabling ministers to amend or repeal primary legislation without passing a new Act. Designed for responsiveness, they mean Parliament does not need to legislate afresh each time the EU updates its rules.

A Familiar Political Backlash

Cue familiar claims of “tyranny”, “lack of scrutiny”, and “Brexit by the back door”. Before critics rush to condemn Keir Starmer for deploying these powers, it is worth recalling how frequently they have been used in recent years.

Henry VIII powers were used extensively to deliver Brexit itself. The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 granted ministers sweeping authority to revoke, replace or restate EU-derived laws. Secondary legislation was then used to determine the future of hundreds, potentially thousands, of measures across nearly 300 policy areas, from workers’ rights to environmental protections and food standards. This occurred alongside the abolition of the European Scrutiny Committee in 2024, removing Parliament’s dedicated mechanism for overseeing EU-related matters.

The Same Tools, A New Direction

Now the same legislative tools are set to facilitate alignment with EU standards in areas such as food and drink imports, access to the European electricity market, and emissions trading. More sectors are likely to follow as the Government builds on its “reset” with the European Union and explores future access to the Single Market and its 460 million consumers.

Secondary legislation is the most practical way to keep pace with evolving regulatory frameworks. It offers the flexibility to respond quickly without overloading the primary legislative timetable. Crucially, the enabling primary legislation will still pass through Parliament, allowing scrutiny of the mechanism itself, as in 2023.

Scrutiny and the Economic Case

Supporters of closer alignment should not dismiss concerns about oversight. Henry VIII clauses are typically subject to the affirmative procedure, requiring debate and approval in either the House of Commons or the House of Lords. That provides a higher level of scrutiny than applies to many statutory instruments.

Greater scrutiny should be welcomed, not resisted. Rather than relitigating old arguments, ministers should use this moment to strengthen parliamentary oversight. That could include reinstating the European Scrutiny Committee and working more closely with groups such as the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Europe to ensure Parliament plays a full role in shaping the UK’s evolving relationship with Europe.

Dynamic alignment is not just a constitutional issue; it is an economic necessity. Red tape remains a significant barrier for UK businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises that form the backbone of the economy. For many, it directly constrains trade. Closer alignment could unlock access to the Single Market and enable more frictionless trade with European partners.

It must also be recognised that these are “gateway drugs”: the UK–EU reset depends on much more than easier trading with the bloc and eliminating unnecessary red tape. Youth mobility, Erasmus and Horizon have never been headline-grabbers, but they are important, and offerings of reconciliation: the easy pickings that demonstrate a willingness to leave the egregious absolutism of the “hard Brexit” behind. It was never a requirement. What can follow, if that hand is played carefully, is a boost to the economy that seemingly cannot be achieved by any other means, and which is needed from any Chancellor willing to take the coldest look at what needs to be done.

In the most pragmatic terms, from energy, to defence to trade, whatever needless barriers to growth can be undone, whatever opens the UK up once again to investment and trade, cannot come a moment too soon. At the moment, one option is staring us all in the face.

Photo Credit: Alexandre Lallemand (Unsplash)

However, while AI innovations are promising, the report says systemic barriers remain in translating these innovations into large-scale solutions across the NHS. The AI if Ready. Is the System? report, compiled by UKAI and Curia, offers a roadmap to overcome these barriers, aligning infrastructure, regulation, and investment. The recommendations outlined are not just healthcare-specific but also present significant opportunities for business growth and economic development within the life sciences sector.

The UK is renowned for its leadership in life sciences research and AI innovation. However, translating these strengths into large-scale, practical applications within the NHS remains a challenge. Despite numerous successful pilots and cutting-edge AI tools ready for deployment, systemic barriers in governance, regulation, and infrastructure are slowing their widespread adoption.

This report, a collaboration between UKAI and Curia, examines the key challenges and opportunities in scaling AI within the healthcare system, highlighting the vital need for coordinated efforts across industry, government, and healthcare providers. The findings are not just critical for healthcare reform but also for the broader economic agenda, offering businesses and policymakers a clear framework to drive growth in AI and life sciences.

Key Insights from the Report:

1. Unlocking the Potential of AI in Healthcare

AI’s potential in healthcare is undeniable, from reducing clinical workload to improving patient outcomes through predictive diagnostics and genomic medicine. However, the UK’s ambition must shift from experimenting with AI to fully integrating these innovations into healthcare infrastructures. The need for a robust digital ecosystem that allows for seamless data sharing, real-time monitoring, and scalable AI tools is urgent.

“To turn AI from a promising innovation into a healthcare revolution, we must align infrastructure, regulation, and funding. Only then can we achieve the transformative impact we need for both patients and the economy.” Rt Hon Andrew Stephenson CBE, Chair, Curia, Health, Care, and Life Sciences Research Group

“To turn AI from a promising innovation into a healthcare revolution, we must align infrastructure, regulation, and funding. Only then can we achieve the transformative impact we need for both patients and the economy.” Rt Hon Andrew Stephenson CBE, Chair, Curia, Health, Care, and Life Sciences Research Group

For businesses, AI presents a significant opportunity: by developing solutions that integrate with the NHS’s digital infrastructure, companies can position themselves as leaders in AI-driven healthcare transformation. This is especially true for startups and scaleups that can provide flexible, scalable technologies capable of addressing fragmented data systems and siloed digital environments within the NHS.

2. System Readiness: A Key Business Consideration

While AI technologies are advancing, the readiness of the healthcare system to integrate them is inconsistent. The report identifies the lack of interoperability and fragmented governance as major obstacles to AI adoption. To overcome these, the UK must treat data infrastructure and interoperability as national priorities.

At one of the Parliamentary events, host and Member of Parliament for Morecambe and Lunesdale, Lizzie Collinge MP championed the North West economy highlighting that “the UK’s ability to lead in AI-enabled healthcare depends on overcoming not just technical challenges but systemic barriers.

“By aligning AI with business and industrial strategy, we can ensure that the country remains at the forefront of healthcare innovation, driving both improved patient outcomes and economic growth”.

For businesses involved in digital infrastructure or healthcare IT solutions, there is a growing market for services that facilitate interoperability, data integration, and secure digital environments. By creating solutions that meet the NHS’s needs for unified, seamless digital systems, companies can support the transition to AI-enabled care while positioning themselves as key players in the digital health ecosystem.

3. Regulatory Agility: Balancing Innovation and Safety

Regulation plays a pivotal role in ensuring that AI tools are deployed safely within the NHS. However, as the report highlights, current frameworks are not designed to accommodate adaptive AI technologies. There is a need for a flexible, iterative regulatory approach that balances speed with safety.

“The UK’s future in AI-driven healthcare depends on collaboration across sectors. By ensuring clear governance and empowering clinicians, we can accelerate the responsible deployment of AI, enhancing both patient care and our global competitiveness.” Adama Ibrahim, UKAI, Life Sciences Advisory Board

“The UK’s future in AI-driven healthcare depends on collaboration across sectors. By ensuring clear governance and empowering clinicians, we can accelerate the responsible deployment of AI, enhancing both patient care and our global competitiveness.” Adama Ibrahim, UKAI, Life Sciences Advisory Board

For businesses in the healthcare and AI sectors, the regulatory landscape offers both challenges and opportunities. Clear and adaptive regulatory processes will enable faster deployment of AI tools, allowing businesses to innovate without being stifled by outdated regulations. This also presents an opportunity to engage with regulators to help shape the future of AI regulation in healthcare.

Strategic Opportunities for Business Growth

1. Infrastructure as a National Asset

The UK’s digital health infrastructure needs to be treated as a national asset. Investing in federated, interoperable platforms, and secure data environments (SDEs) will enable AI tools to function effectively at scale. For businesses, this presents an opportunity to partner with the NHS and government to build AI infrastructure, offering long-term growth prospects.

Moreover, AI developers can play a key role in ensuring that AI solutions are integrated into this infrastructure in a way that maximises their potential, improving both clinical outcomes and operational efficiency.

2. Aligning AI with Industrial Strategy

AI is more than just a tool for improving healthcare – it is a key driver of economic growth. The UK’s industrial strategy must align with the digital transformation of healthcare to ensure that the country remains a global leader in AI innovation. By focusing on developing AI tools that address specific NHS needs, businesses can contribute to the UK’s economic growth while improving the sustainability of the healthcare system.

The report makes it clear that responsible AI deployment within the NHS is not a trade-off between public service and economic growth. Instead, it is an opportunity to advance both, with businesses playing a key role in driving the transformation.

Companies that can navigate regulatory challenges, streamline procurement processes, and demonstrate measurable impact will be well-positioned to capitalise on this market.

3. Reimagining Prevention and Predictive Healthcare

AI-driven genomics and predictive medicine are reshaping how healthcare systems approach prevention. However, as the report highlights, the UK’s current funding models prioritise acute care over prevention, making it difficult to scale predictive tools.

For businesses in the life sciences and AI sectors, there is a clear opportunity to lead in the development of predictive models that can be integrated into existing healthcare systems. Additionally, companies can explore how to influence policy discussions around prevention funding and develop solutions that address the structural barriers in healthcare financing.

Conclusion: Moving from Innovation to Scale

The UK is well-positioned to lead the world in AI-enabled healthcare, but significant structural reforms are necessary to turn this potential into reality. By aligning infrastructure, regulation, and funding with the nation’s ambitions for AI, businesses can play a pivotal role in transforming the healthcare system while driving economic growth.

For businesses and policymakers, the challenge highlighted by this report is to work together to overcome the systemic barriers that are currently preventing AI from achieving its full potential. The opportunities for innovation, economic growth, and improving patient outcomes are immense. With the right strategy, the UK can lead the way in delivering AI at scale across healthcare systems, ensuring that innovation translates into long-term impact.

Andy Burrows

CEO of the Molly Rose Foundation

Social media is harming children, and politicians are turning to an under-16 ban. Yet, Andy Burrows, CEO of the Molly Rose Foundation set up after Molly Russell’s death, explains why this instinctive solution could backfire and how we can approach creating better protections for children.

Every parent worries desperately about the Internet. They are entirely right to do so. More than eight years after the death of Molly Russell, the risks of social media remain pervasive and entirely unacceptable.

For children’s online safety and well-being, it increasingly appears that this year will mark an inflection point.

Driven by increasing calls for a social media ban, there is now irresistible political pressure for the Government to address the acute harms that continue to take young lives and the chronic harms that affect the mental health and well-being of teens.

When Molly died, she was days away from her 15^th birthday. She had everything to live for. However, as the inquest into her death determined, Molly’s well-being was being steadily eroded by social media algorithms that bombarded her with a continuous stream of dangerous and deeply inappropriate suicide and self-harm content.

Regrettably, Molly’s death was not an isolated incident. Here in the UK, we lose a young person to suicide where technology plays a role every single week.

The Harms are Real and Ongoing

Research conducted by the Molly Rose Foundation found that half of the girls surveyed encounter content about suicide, self-harm, depression, or eating disorders each week. This isn’t an aberration, but the inevitable result of Silicon Valley business models that ruthlessly exploit and monetise our children’s attention.

In the face of such disturbing and pervasive widespread harm, it is no surprise that the patience of parents and caregivers has finally snapped. After years of delays and wholly insufficient action, parents understandably feel let down by successive governments and regulators, but most of all by tech firms that consistently prioritise corporate profit over children’s safety.

In the void created by legislation that was repeatedly delayed and then watered down, many parents have wholly understandably decided that the political will to decisively protect our children just isn’t there.

In opposition, Labour’s now Deputy Leader, Lucy Powell, announced that the Party would introduce stronger online safety legislation as a “top priority”. She promised parents, “I have met many of the families who have lost teenagers from online activity, and I promised them we would act.”

When the Government came into power, those promises came to nought. Lobbying from tech companies and the geopolitical headwinds from Washington DC meant that children’s online safety was yet again traded off.

In the face of such inaction and inertia, it is no wonder that calls to follow Australia’s lead and ban under-16s from social media have grown. Other countries, including Spain, have announced they will follow suit.

Why an Under-16 Ban is the Wrong Answer

As Chief Executive of the online safety charity founded in Molly’s name, you might expect me to be enthusiastically supportive of calls for a ban. The reality is the opposite. Along with over 40 other children’s safety experts and groups, I passionately believe that social media bans are the wrong approach.

Though well-intentioned, bans could end up doing more harm than good. In Australia, the early indications are that bans are proving to be wholly ineffective. For example, Instagram has only removed one account for every eight young people aged 8 to 15. Snapchat has performed only marginally better.

Parents are right to demand bold and comprehensive further action. However, families deserve better than a blunt and simplistic approach that affords them a false sense of safety, and that may make the safety and well-being of their children worse rather than better.

If properly enforced, a ban would introduce a deeply damaging cliff edge for older teens – and particularly girls – who would be suddenly exposed to poorly regulated online platforms on their 16^th birthday.

With few, or no, protective guardrails in place, I’d worry deeply about the risks of suddenly exposing teenage girls to the worst excesses of social media platforms, especially while they are wholly ill-equipped and inexperienced to deal with the misogyny, toxicity, and sexual abuse they will regrettably continue to face.

We should be deeply worried about the risk that a ban will erect a new set of barriers that will make it harder and much less likely for children to disclose abuse and get the help and support they need.

Crucially, we must recognise that every child is different, that every childhood has different needs. Many young people rely on social media for connection, identity exploration, and support. For LGBTQ+ and neurodiverse children, being online can offer real benefits around identity, self-esteem, and peer support.

In Australia, we are already seeing children being referred to youth mental health services after being cut off from their online support networks. The country’s CAMHS equivalent reports that 10 per cent of new referrals stem from the country’s social media ban. 

A Better Way Forward

However, there is another, better way. I utterly reject the idea that we must either support a counterproductive ban or continue to tolerate the appalling status quo.

For a start, the Prime Minister must press ahead with a bold expansion of the Online Safety Act, ensuring it finally tackles addictive design and attention-based business models.

We should see the introduction of risk-based minimum age ratings, which would see platforms adopt higher minimum joining ages if they offer higher risk design features, for example, livestreaming or AI chatbots.

We should introduce a new duty on tech firms to promote and protect children’s well-being, making well-being-by-design the price of admission to the UK market.

This means their algorithms must not only be free of harmful content, but must recommend high-quality, age-appropriate content from a diverse range of trusted sources, including trusted mental health support, education providers, and public service broadcasters.

As the Government’s consultation gets underway, I am hopeful we will finally see the urgent and decisive action that parents and children are rightly demanding.   

Support for a new Online Safety Act is considerable – three-quarters of adults want strengthened legislation, with more support being expressed for tougher regulation than for an Australian-style ban.

It’s time for this Government to act. It’s time for a bold and comprehensive plan that, if backed by political will, will attract the support of experts, civil society, young people, and a clear majority of parents.

Parents want us to focus on the ends, not the means.

And they desperately need us to get this right.

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

You can buy your copy here.

Image credit: Shutterstock

Sir John Curtice

Professor of Politics, Strathclyde University

Britain’s foremost polling expert argues that May 7 will expose Labour to losses from both Reform and the Greens across England, and nationalists in Wales and Scotland, making this midterm contest a crucial test of whether the Party can withstand an increasingly fragmented electoral landscape.

The local and devolved elections that will take place on May 7 will be the biggest mid-term test of the popularity of the parties in this Parliament. Not only are there elections to the Devolved Parliament in Scotland and the Senedd in Wales, but there are local elections in most of urban England, including in all the London boroughs and in most of the councils located in and around the biggest cities outside the capital. They are taking place, of course, at a time of unprecedented electoral turbulence.

A Fragmented Political Landscape

 Reform have been continuously ahead in the polls since last spring, consistently averaging at or around 30 per cent. Labour (currently on 20 per cent) and the Conservatives (19 per cent) have persistently been struggling to scrape together two-fifths of the vote between them. Since the election of Zac Polanski, the Greens have been averaging around 13 per cent and challenging the Liberal Democrats for fourth place. Never before has British politics looked so fragmented.

Labour seemingly have most to lose on May 7. In the English local elections, around two-thirds of the seats up for grabs this year were previously contested four years ago, a very different world politically from now. Boris Johnson was still Prime Minister, though by this stage, wounded by ‘partygate’. Labour, on 40 per cent, were ahead of the Conservatives in the polls by six points. The Liberal Democrats were still shuffling along on just 10 per cent, while both the Greens (6 per cent) and Reform were still minnows. Although, as is typically the case in English local elections, the Liberal Democrats performed better than their current Westminster poll rating, the BBC estimated that Labour’s performance was the equivalent of the Party being five points ahead of the Conservatives across Britain as a whole. In short, Labour is defending a relatively good performance from the last time most of the seats up for grabs this year were previously contested.

Labour on the Defensive in England

Meanwhile – in sharp contrast to last year’s county council elections – this year’s local elections take place predominantly in what would normally be regarded as safe Labour territory. Nowadays, London is the Party’s strongest region anywhere in Britain. In 2022, the Party won an overall majority on 21 of the 32 borough councils and nearly two-thirds of all the seats in the capital. Labour is currently in charge of 25 of the 32 metropolitan councils in and around England’s major provincial cities where voters are going to the polls. Even in the mostly smaller councils elsewhere where there are elections this year, Labour is in sole charge of more administrations (32) than any other party. Across all the 136 English councils where a ballot is taking place, the Party is defending over half of the 5,000 seats being contested.

Green Challenge in London

With its current support standing at just half of what it was four years ago, Labour is clearly at risk of suffering serious losses. It probably faces a battle on two fronts – one with Reform, the other with the Greens. Reform are primarily dependent on the support of those who back Brexit. Remain voting London is therefore unlikely to be fruitful territory for Nigel Farage’s Party. However, the capital is full of the kind of young middle-class professionals among whom the Greens are polling especially well, seemingly at Labour’s expense. Much of the capital also has a substantial Muslim population, among whom Labour lost a lot of ground in 2024.

Moreover, the Greens already have a track record of good local election performances in the city – in 2022, the party won 12 per cent of the vote even though it only contested half the wards. Labour’s one hope is that, because it has a large majority in many wards, even if the Greens do well in votes, they might not do so well in terms of seats.

Outside London, however, Labour do have to worry about Reform. Unfortunately for Labour, because of ward boundary changes, all the seats are up for grabs for a number of key councils the Party currently controls but which voted heavily for Brexit in 2016 – including Barnsley, Sunderland, and Wakefield. Reform will at least be hoping to deny Labour control of these citadels. Meanwhile, in Bradford, the Party’s grip on a council that includes many Muslim voters is already not that strong.

Trouble in Wales and Scotland

Wales, of course, is very much traditional Labour territory. Labour has won the largest share of the vote at every general election bar one (1931) since 1922. The Party has been either the sole or the principal party in the Welsh Government ever since the advent of devolution in 1999 – even though, for example, at the time of the last Senedd election five years ago (in May 2021), the Party was struggling in the Britain-wide polls. Following a decision to move to a new system of proportional representation, it was already quite likely the Party would win well under half the seats this time. Even so, polls of the Senedd election, while limited in number and somewhat divergent in their findings, all agree that Labour are running in third place behind both Plaid Cymru and Reform.

True, Labour’s one-time dominance of Scottish politics is long lost in the mists of time. The Party came a miserable third at the last Holyrood election in May 2021. However, after coming first in Scotland in the 2024 election and sweeping aside the SNP in most constituencies, there were high hopes the Party’s Scottish leader, Anas Sarwar, would be able to end 19 years of SNP rule in Edinburgh in May. However, the polls suggest that in the wake of the unpopularity of the UK Government, the Party is potentially heading for third place once again.

A Storm for the Two-party System

However, the Conservatives cannot afford to be complacent. They have their vulnerability too. The Party will be defending over 1,300 seats. Meanwhile, thanks to the reversal of the Government’s original decision to postpone some of the elections, elections will now take place for six shire county councils where the elections were postponed last year. In each case, the seats being defended were last contested in 2021, when the Conservatives were riding high in the polls. And in the similar county council elections last year, the Party lost control of every single council it was trying to defend, not least because of heavy losses to Reform. Meanwhile, the Party seems set to slump from second to a record low fourth place in both Scotland and Wales.

Britain’s two traditional parties of government are likely to be severely tested on May 7. Much may yet rest on their ability or otherwise to withstand the coming electoral storm.

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

You can buy your copy here.

Image credit: Shutterstock

Claudia Kenyatta and Emma Squire

Co-CEOs – Historic England

In this timely case for “good growth”, Claudia Kenyatta and Emma Squire, Co-CEOs of Historic England, draw on new research to argue that everyday historic buildings are not nostalgic luxuries but vital emotional infrastructure that boosts wellbeing, attracts investment, unlocks housing and helps communities thrive.

Walk through a place – a town by the sea, or a city when it’s quieter than usual – and you can’t help but notice its architecture. A row of Georgian houses. A Victorian shopfront. A cabmen’s shelter. A weathered pub sign. Without knowing why, you feel something. Something good.

That response, it turns out, is far more than nostalgia. According to new research from Historic England and the University of Glasgow, our emotional connections to historic places are vital to our mental health and wellbeing – and they’re quietly helping to shape the economic geography of the nation.

The Evidence is Clear

The report, Connecting People and Place: Valuing the Felt Experiences of Historic Places, presents findings that should give pause to anyone in the sphere of planning, development, or regeneration. Historic places possess restorative qualities comparable to natural green spaces. That Victorian pub or Edwardian cinema isn’t just pleasing to the eye – it’s doing genuine psychological work.

The numbers back this up. A new poll commissioned by Historic England found that seven in ten respondents consider local historic buildings important to their quality of life. Almost two-thirds said being in or around historic buildings positively affects their wellbeing. Perhaps most surprising: young adults aged 25–34 reported the strongest positive impact, with 70 per cent saying historic buildings boost their wellbeing. This is not, as some might assume, merely the preserve of older generations.

Emotional Infrastructure

What the research reveals is something many people, from urban planners to economists, have often struggled to quantify: the emotional infrastructure that makes a place feel like somewhere worth being.

Everyday historic places provide what the researchers call “permanence” – a sense of stability and continuity that helps people feel secure. In an era of constant change, this matters a great deal. We’re not talking about castles or country houses, but the ordinary historic buildings woven into the fabric of a place. The familiar clock tower, the seaside pier you visited regularly as a child, the corner pub that’s served the same community for generations, the village church – these aren’t just relics. They’re anchors that instil a sense of pride and belonging in people.

The flipside is equally illuminating. When shown images of historic buildings in disrepair, 56 per cent of poll respondents reported feeling sad. One in five felt ashamed. The collective grief that followed the demolition of the Crooked House pub in Staffordshire, or the felling of the Sycamore Gap tree at Hadrian’s Wall, wasn’t sentimental overreaction. It was a genuine response to loss – loss of shared landmarks that helped communities understand who they are.

It is no surprise, then, that communities are working hard to save local historic landmarks. Take the Grade II* Winter Gardens in Morecambe. In one of the country’s most economically challenged coastal communities, volunteers refused to accept the loss of the Winter Gardens, which sits on the seafront. After decades of decay, a community trust stepped in, beginning its revival as a cultural venue and skills hub. With a cash injection through the Heritage at Risk Capital Fund, the trust is saving a beautiful theatre built in 1897, helping to boost civic pride and the local economy.

Heritage is an Economic Asset

Historic places make a substantial and sustained contribution to economic development. Heritage-driven domestic tourism attracted more than 225 million visits in 2023, generating £16 billion in visitor spending. Creative industries, which contributed £124 billion to the UK economy that same year, actively seek out locations with architectural character and aesthetic quality. They’re not choosing bland business parks, they’re choosing places with history.

But the economic power runs deeper, because the research suggests that emotional connections to historic places drive where people choose to live, work, visit and invest. This is the ripple effect that is transforming sentiment into spending power, and spending power into local prosperity and growth.

A Contribution to Housebuilding

The Government has set an ambitious milestone of 1.5 million new homes this Parliament. Heritage has a role to play here too. Historic buildings across England could provide 670,000 new homes through sensitive conversion and adaptive reuse. These are spaces with character, embedded in communities, and often in locations where people want to live. Reusing historic buildings can also help local authorities achieve their Net Zero targets because the greenest building is the one that already exists.

As part of the High Street Heritage Action Zones programme, which ran in more than 60 places across England, a number of historic buildings were brought back into use for communities. For example, in Hastings in Sussex, a former newspaper office, the Observer building, was restored. It now houses space for 12 residential units, a gym, a cafe and events space, a creative technology hub, and a board room.

In Oswestry in Shropshire, long-term vacant shop premises on Cross Street were repurposed – bringing ground-floor units back into retail use, including the installation of newly designed timber shop fronts, and developing the upper floors into new homes, creating nine units. 

The blueprint from this regeneration programme, which saw local authorities come together with partners, can be used to help high streets adapt and remain a fixture in communities.

The Devolution Opportunity

This research comes at an important time as the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill progresses through Parliament.

We encourage local leaders to include heritage in their planning and development strategies – and we’re here to support them. Mayors and combined authorities with greater powers over planning, regeneration, and economic development can protect and repurpose historic buildings as drivers of growth, while creating places where people can live happier, healthier lives.

We’re also here to support others with an interest and role in placemaking and local growth, such as local councillors, and those working in local authorities and Business Improvement Districts. Our regional teams have strong working relationships with many councils up and down the country and regularly meet MPs in their constituencies to discuss how heritage can support regeneration and local pride. Many council leaders and their teams are already alive to this potential – they recognise that heritage can generate good growth and that it is valued by people from all backgrounds.

Our job, alongside the wider heritage sector, is to ensure that heritage is recognised and treated as an asset by all local authorities, as well as by developers and their investors.

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

You can buy your copy here.

Featured image is of Moseley Road Baths by Historic England. Funding for repairs included £657,000 from the World Monuments Fund, Historic England and Birmingham City Council.

At a summit in Barnsley, NHS leaders, digital entrepreneurs, and AI specialists confronted an uncomfortable truth: the NHS doesn’t lack good ideas. It lacks the conditions to spread them.

The NHS has never suffered from a shortage of innovation. What it suffers from is a second-adopter problem — the systemic failure to take what works in one place and make it work everywhere else. That was the central challenge at Curia’s Accelerating NHS Innovation Summit, held at Barnsley Football Club in February 2026. 

Furthermore, understanding the impact of obesity on health outcomes remains a priority for the NHS.

The question was not what the health service should do. It was how it could actually move and move quickly.

Chaired by Curia’s Health, Care, and Life Sciences Research Group Chair and former Minister of State at the Department of Health and Social Care, Rt Hon Andrew Stephenson CBE, the discussion was deliberately structured around learnings from past failures and opportunities for the future. What barriers keep reappearing? What unglamorous solutions actually work? And what could another Integrated Care System (ICS) lift and reuse tomorrow, without waiting for new legislation or fresh national funding?

When Stigma Became the System Barrier

Head of Population Health at West Yorkshire Health and Care Partnership, Emm Irving opened with a reframe that set the tone. The hardest barrier the ICS had faced in redesigning obesity pathways was not commissioning structures or data gaps. It was stigma.

“The biggest barrier is stigma,” Irving said. “Trying to understand that this is about people living with a long-term relapsing condition, that’s often looked at as your own fault.”

West Yorkshire spent eighteen months bringing clinicians, finance leads, public health teams, and policy colleagues to a shared understanding: obesity is a chronic relapsing condition shaped by systemic failure and lived trauma, not individual laziness. That reframing, she argued, is foundational. Without it, clinical innovation lands in a system still organised around blame.

The arrival of GLP-1 drugs then destabilised that consensus — pushing decision-making back into a purely budget-driven frame. Irving was direct: “So what are we going to do then? Just leave people to die?”

The West Yorkshire model now rests on five elements: biology, psychology, socioeconomics, treatment, and care — a framework she argued cannot be bypassed even by pharmaceutical breakthroughs.

Most of its foundations, she noted, cost very little to build.

When Commissioning Designs Out the Patient

Programme Director for the West Yorkshire and Harrogate Planned Care Alliance, Catherine Thompson argued that services fail when systems lose sight of why people work in healthcare in the first place. Planned care pathways for women’s health frequently lose out because demand is diffuse and cuts across multiple services, with commissioning structures inadvertently creating gaps that leave patients bouncing between providers.

Digital infrastructure is too fragmented for information to follow a person across their care journey. And professional resistance — consultants reluctant to cede clinical leadership even when evidence supports it — adds another layer of friction.

Her prescription was simple: start with what people actually need. “The point in why I go to work every day isn’t to manage NHS finances,” she said. “It was because I wanted to help people live better lives.”

Thompson also raised what she called the future Horizon scandal for the NHS. If a diagnostic algorithm fails, who is responsible — the clinician who applied it, the developer who built it, or the organisation that deployed it? That question, she argued, needs answering before AI adoption scales, not after harm occurs.

Digital Inclusion and The Three-Client Problem 

Co-Founder of Essential Parent, Diana Hill brought a digital provider’s perspective on embedding digital tools sustainably across health systems. Her organisation’s localised apps — covering midwifery, infant feeding, health visiting,and the full women’s health pathway — now operate across Greater Manchester, Cheshire, Merseyside, Birmingham and inner-city London.

It took eight years, she said, to realise the product serves three distinct clients simultaneously: the women and parents using it, the health teams whose workflows it must support, and the commissioners whose targets it must meet. Getting that balance wrong means adoption stalls regardless of clinical value.

A recent National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) grant will deliver services across more than a hundred languages — an impetus that came from focus groups with Somali women in Liverpool. “There’s no word for menopause in quite a few languages,” Hill noted — a reminder that digital inclusion requires cultural literacy, not just technical translation.

From AI Pilots to System Capability 

Chief Executive of trade association for the AI economy in the UK, UKAI, Tim Flagg turned to the question haunting NHS innovation: why do successful pilots not spread?

His answer centred on three gaps. First, the people gap — AI tools that ignore patient centrality or embed bias fail to earn clinical trust. Second, the platform gap — without an interoperable data infrastructure, tools cannot connect across the pathway. Third, the productivity gap — until the first two are resolved, AI remains a collection of isolated tools rather than a shared system capability.

Flagg was candid: “We are really just at the beginning.” Failure is inevitable — the question is whether it happens in safe environments, through sandboxes and synthetic data, or in live clinical settings. 

The most successful implementations he had observed gave clinicians time back from administration and paperwork, rather than replacing them.

On Thompson’s accountability question, he acknowledged the industry has no settled answer — but asking it, he argued, is itself responsible practice. 

Precisely what the companies behind some recent AI controversies failed to do.

What Monday Morning Actually Looks Like

The panel’s closing consensus was practical. Workforce transformation must accompany service redesign, not by training more people into old roles, but by rethinking skill mix and professional boundaries. Digital tools need to be framed as supporting staff, not replacing them, or resistance will derail adoption before it begins.

Above all, trust between clinicians and patients, and between the public and AI, must be treated as a precondition for innovation, not an afterthought.

Stephenson closed by returning to the thread that ran through every contribution: people. How services are designed around them, how relationships are built and sustained, and how trust, once lost, takes far longer to rebuild than any technology takes to deploy.

Sarah Woolnough

Chief Executive – The King’s Fund

Assessing the Government’s reform agenda 18 months on, Sarah Woolnough, Chief Executive of the King’s Fund, examines whether falling waiting lists signal genuine recovery in the NHS or mask deeper structural pressures that must be addressed to deliver the ambitions of the 10 Year Plan for Health.

When the new Government came into power in 2024, a new chapter for the NHS was at the heart of its plans: a commitment to ‘fix’ a broken system through reform. Lord Darzi’s investigation detailed an NHS that had struggled under the weight of years of inadequate investment, inefficient systems, and an ageing population. It was a health service that did not fare well when compared with those of other European countries. Eighteen months on, the government has succeeded in bringing down NHS waiting lists in some areas, but it is important to dig beneath the surface to understand progress and ongoing challenges.

Early Gains, Modest Impact

A drop in the number of people waiting for NHS care is encouraging and will make a real difference to those waiting for treatment, however, progress is relatively slow. The overall hospital waiting list in England stood at 7.6 million in July 2024 and has fallen to 7.3 million – roughly a 4 per cent drop.

And while the number of treatments provided to patients each month is increasing – and the waiting list has decreased overall[1] – this reduction has been due in part to factors other than better or increased medical care, namely, “unreported removals” or “list cleansing” – a process by which patients are taken off the waiting list due to a particular treatment no longer being clinically appropriate for a patient, or the patient declining treatment or missing their appointment after referral, or to correct administrative errors[A1] .

There are obviously many factors that contribute to a long waiting list, including a growing population, which leads to more demand, and workforce shortages in some specialities and roles, which limits the capacity to deliver treatment. Another significant factor in recent years was, of course, the COVID-19 pandemic: the waiting list was already high beforehand, but it grew dramatically in the wake of the pandemic, due to the number of NHS services that were paused.

Inequality and Regional Variation

Throughout England, the picture is also variable across different demographic groups – whether socio-economic or age-related: people living in the most deprived areas of England are more likely to be waiting longer for elective care than those in the most advantaged areas.[2] And a larger proportion of those aged over 65 experience shorter waiting times, of less than 18 weeks, than both younger adults and people under the age of 18. This variation is also reflected in the proportion of people experiencing very long waits.[3]

The limited progress with respect to elective surgery waiting times is also being mirrored in other key areas. The 2025/26 NHS guidance set the target of seeing 78 per cent of A&E patients within four hours by March this year, but, as of last month, just 72 per cent of patients were being seen within that time. Therefore, the feasibility of the four-hour waiting target by March 2027 being 82 per cent – as set out in the medium-term planning guidance – looks ambitious.

There are other challenges, such as the major restructure underway across the service, with the merger of NHS England and DHSC and significant changes to the makeup of Integrated Health Systems and other regional and local bodies taking time and attention.  There is also the wellbeing and morale of the NHS’s workforce to consider. Recent research by The King’s Fund has shown that many feel exhausted and under-valued. They are not just overwhelmed, they are firefighting. Without serious consideration of this and the importance of compassionate, humane leadership to improve working conditions and culture within the NHS, the system risks underperforming.[4]

Beyond Waiting Lists – the Real Long-term Prize

Reducing the waiting lists is certainly important (not least to those who have waited many months or even years for treatment) – and the government is right to set targets – but the real prize for the long term lies elsewhere. This is set out in the 10 Year Plan for Health: to build a health and care system that works to prevent illness in the first place, to create a system that facilitates care beyond hospitals and moves more of it into the community, and one that empowers citizens and patients to take more control over their health.

A better primary and community care system – such as easier access to GP and other health professional appointments, prompt referrals to diagnostic tests, and better joined-up care pathways between service-providers – will be vital to improve health outcomes.

Additionally, the Government needs to address the significant challenges facing the social care sector, and people’s ability to access the quality care they require. The danger is that progress in NHS performance is hampered by a lack of join-up with, or provision of, social care. The example of an older person being admitted to hospital because they aren’t in receipt of support – for example, with cooking or washing – to stay well at home, is a common one. Similarly, another common problem of staff shortages in the social care sector is in danger of being exacerbated by a tightening of the rules on health and care visas, and risks progress on system improvement in the short term.

Looking to the future, the Government will need to be pragmatic and make some tough, perhaps unpopular, choices. However, MPs can play a huge role in shaping these priorities by focusing on the interventions that can truly deliver on the aims of the 10 Year Plan for Health. The NHS and DHSC alone cannot achieve this; it will require the implementation of a cross-governmental approach, akin to the ‘health mission’, to tackle poor health at its root cause by addressing the issues of poor housing, financial hardship, and unhealthy environments. The Government promised this when it came to power. Real change will only be brought about with greater thinking across departments and systems – not just within them.

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

You can buy your copy here.

[1] From September 2024 to May 2025

[2] In November 2025, of those waiting for treatment in the most deprived areas, just 59.8% had been waiting less than 18 weeks for treatment since being referred, and 2.4% had been waiting over a year, while of those from the most wealthy areas, 61.7% had been waiting less than 18 weeks for treatment and 2.2% had been waiting more than a year. The King’s Fund published a report that examines what local NHS trusts and integrated care boards are doing to address inequalities on waiting lists

[3] 64.1% of people older than 65 are waiting less than 18 weeks in November 2025 – compared with 59.0% of those aged between 19 and 64, and 59.1% of those under the age of 18.  1.9% of those aged over 65 have been waiting over a year since referral compared with 2.5% of 19 to 64-year-olds and 2.2% of those under the age of 18.

[4] Our long read From burnout to belief: reflections on reforming the NHS from within looks at the reasons for low morale amongst NHS staff.

Photo Credit: Shutterstock

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

Housing is one of the defining political and moral challenges of our time. It sits at the intersection of fairness, opportunity, health, and economic security. However, for too long, it has been treated as a narrow policy silo rather than the foundation on which people build their lives. This Sprint session was convened in recognition of a simple truth: if we are serious about improving health outcomes, reducing pressure on public services, and creating resilient communities, we must start with the homes people live in.

I come to this discussion not only as a Member of Parliament, but as someone who has spent many years in local government, grappling with the practical realities of housing delivery. I have seen firsthand how decisions made in Westminster land in council offices, housing departments, and living rooms. I have also seen the consequences when policy ambition is not matched by delivery capability or joined up thinking. Housing is where those gaps are felt most acutely.

Across the South East, the pressures are intense. Demand for housing continues to grow, driven by population change, economic patterns, and displacement from higher-cost areas. At the same time, councils face constrained land supply, stretched infrastructure, and rising costs. The result is a system that too often responds to crisis rather than preventing it. Temporary accommodation, overcrowding, and poor-quality housing are no longer edge cases; they are becoming structural features of the system, with profound consequences for health, education, and wellbeing.

What was striking about this Sprint was the breadth of experience around the table and the consistency of the diagnosis. Councillors described families being moved miles away from their communities, children losing access to schools and GPs, and adults struggling to maintain work.

Health leaders spoke about preventable demand flowing into the NHS, driven by damp homes, cold conditions, stress, and isolation. Infrastructure providers highlighted the difficulty of retrofitting solutions into places that were never designed with integration in mind. Despite coming from different perspectives, participants were describing the same problem.

One of the clearest messages to emerge was that housing cannot be separated from health. The home is where people recover, age, raise families, and manage long-term conditions. When homes are unsafe, cold, overcrowded, or disconnected, the consequences show up elsewhere in the system. We see it in respiratory illness, in mental health pressures, in delayed hospital discharge, and in escalating social care needs. Treating housing as a downstream issue, rather than a preventive intervention, is a false economy.

The Sprint also challenged us to confront the reality of digital exclusion. We live in a society where access to services, employment, and support increasingly assumes a level of digital connectivity. Yet millions of people, particularly in social housing, remain effectively offline. This is not a marginal issue.

It affects the ability of residents to book GP appointments, engage with schools, apply for jobs, or manage their finances. It also constrains the ability of public services to modernise and deliver care more efficiently.

Participants emphasised that this is not only a question of resident access, but a practical constraint on delivery. Without reliable connectivity, councils and housing providers struggle to identify voids and empty homes quickly, monitor property condition, or spot emerging risks before they become crises.

Despite significant national investment in digital infrastructure, too many social homes remain unconnected or reliant on insecure, short-term mobile data. This is not simply a technical failure; it is a policy failure. We would not accept homes without electricity or water, yet we have normalised a situation in which lack of connectivity locks people out of modern life. The Sprint was clear that this must change.

Several contributors argued that the same standard should apply to broadband: treating connectivity as optional has normalised exclusion and left services unable to modernise at pace.

What I found most encouraging was the shift in the conversation from problem description to practical solutions. Rather than debating abstract targets, the group focused on a concrete proposition: the idea of the connected home. This is not about technology for its own sake. It is about recognising that reliable, affordable connectivity enables better housing management, more preventive health and care, and greater independence for residents. It creates the conditions for services to work together rather than in silos.

The Connected Homes model discussed in this report is deliberately pragmatic. It acknowledges the realities of different sectors, the need for partnership and the importance of trust. It also recognises that connectivity alone is not enough. Skills, support, and clear governance are essential if technology is to empower rather than exclude. Above all, it places residents at the centre, focusing on what enables people to live healthier, more secure, and more connected lives.

This Sprint was not about producing another report that sits on a shelf. It was about identifying an intervention that can be tested, refined, and scaled. The proposals set out here are grounded in lived experience and delivery insight. They offer a way of aligning housing, health, and infrastructure policy around shared outcomes, rather than competing priorities.

Housing policy will always involve difficult choices. There are no simple fixes, and no single intervention will solve every challenge. But if we continue to treat housing as separate from health, digital infrastructure, and prevention, we will continue to pay the price elsewhere in the system. This Sprint points to a different approach, one that starts from the home as the foundation of wellbeing and builds outwards.

I would like to thank all those who contributed to this session for their honesty, expertise, and willingness to engage across boundaries. The task now is to turn these ideas into action. That will require leadership at national and local level, sustained commitment, and a willingness to work differently. The opportunity, however, is significant: healthier communities, more sustainable public services, and a housing system that truly supports the people it is meant to serve.

Photo: New homes built in Crawley, Surrey (Robin Webster)

Find out more: Curia Healthy Homes Programme

To find out more about Curia’s work on healthy homes, contact Partnerships Director Ben McDermott at ben.mcdermott@chamberuk.com

Henry Snowden

Polling Correspondent – PoliticsUK

This article sets out my projection for the upcoming May local elections, based on a proprietary ward-level election model. The model incorporates national polling averages, demographic weighting, historical ward behaviour, and turnout differentials to estimate projected council vote share across 128 authorities.

This is not a prediction of seat totals, but rather a projection based on a vote share assessment of the underlying political landscape of the local elections as it currently stands in mid-February. And on that basis, the projected result is one of fragmentation, volatility, and extraordinary pressure on the Labour Party and its leadership’s ability to continue.

Local Election Test – Reform UK

Reform is overwhelmingly favoured to win the highest national vote share in this year’s local elections. The Party has consistently polled between 26–32 per cent since May last year, maintaining a clear lead over its competitors.

Ahead of the 2024 elections, there was considerable scepticism about whether Reform could translate polling strength into actual votes. Historically, “Faragist” vehicles have sometimes underperformed at the ballot box. In last year’s projection, however, I argued that Reform would not only meet polling expectations but exceed them – driven by three structural advantages: an unpopular Labour Government, a Conservative 2021 voter base demographically vulnerable to Reform, and a measurable turnout enthusiasm advantage. While not all these conditions are as strong today, Reform currently has an even greater advantage than they did last year – they have now established themselves as the dominant force on the right of British politics. That institutional consolidation greatly reduces the risk of polling underperformance, and as long as they are in the same ballpark as their current polling figures, they will have a dominant night, which is why the model projects Reform to win the most votes in 69 of the 128 councils analysed. Strength will be especially pronounced in formerly “Red Wall” authorities such as Hartlepool and Wigan, where comfortable vote-share pluralities are likely.

The Green Party

The Green Party is also on track for a significant advance. Following its leadership change, the Party has risen to record national polling levels (13–16 per cent), positioning it for its strongest ever local election performance in both vote and seat share. However, headline polling obscures a critical structural feature: Green support is highly age-concentrated. Aggregated data shows a clear lead among younger voters. This has a significant geographic implication, which is that the Green Party is likely to overperform in university towns and younger urban centres: Sheffield, inner London, and Manchester being prime examples. Furthermore, there are indications of improved performance among Muslim voters. While this trend is uneven and highly localised, and recent elections show substantial variance, there is good early evidence that points to this demographic trend further boosting Green prospects in certain metropolitan areas.

The Liberal Democrats

The Liberal Democrats are projected to consolidate in most districts they already hold and continue advancing in areas where they have built local infrastructure over recent cycles. However, they face new structural pressure. The simultaneous rise of Reform and the Greens compresses a key portion of the traditional Liberal Democrat coalition. Historically, the Party benefited from general dissatisfaction with the two largest parties. In a five-party competitive environment, that protest space is fragmented. This is likely to show the most effect in places like Hull, where its strong demographic favourability to Reform (low education attainment and high social deprivation) leads to the loss of a former important core “protest vote” coalition. A similar dynamic is likely to be at play (albeit to a smaller degree) among younger people in university areas as the Greens will likely hoover up support from disenchanted progressives, who may have otherwise gone to the Lib Dems. Nevertheless, the Lib Dems are still very likely to hold onto many of their more affluent, “high homeownership districts” such as South Cambridgeshire – recent electoral trends have been so positive in these sorts of areas, and they don’t face the same sort of demographic alignment challenge.

The Party has increased its seat share in nearly every local election since 2016, after heavy coalition-era losses. This projection does not suggest a collapse, as they are projected to win the most votes in 19 councils, four more than they currently “hold”. Nevertheless, it does indicate that their long post-coalition upward trajectory may plateau under intensified multi-party competition.

The Conservatives

The Conservatives are projected to experience another significant vote share decline. Current polling (~19 per cent) is well below their 2021 (~42 per cent), 2022 (~34 per cent), and even 2024 (~23 per cent) levels.

However, the political impact may not feel as catastrophic as last year. Many of the councils voting this year were last contested in 2022 or 2024, meaning the baseline is already depressed.

The central electoral dynamic remains the competition with Reform. Areas where the Conservative 2021–2024 vote was heavily working-class (e.g. Walsall) are likely to see the largest swings away. By contrast, authorities over-indexed toward affluent Conservative voters (e.g. Kensington and Chelsea) should experience smaller declines.

Interestingly, because Labour’s projected decline is steeper still, the Conservatives are projected to top the poll in councils previously won by Labour, such as Wandsworth and Barnet. In short, the primary electoral takeaway for the Conservatives is likely to be many losses throughout the country, which turn out to be politically tolerable for the leadership due to relatively fewer losses compared to Labour and the previous year, as well as the potential of “mirage gains”.

Muslim Independent Groupings

An under-discussed but increasingly significant force in local politics is Muslim independent groupings. Since 2024, these candidates have achieved sustained success in high-Muslim-population authorities: strong metropolitan borough performances in Oldham and Blackburn with Darwen (2024), gains in Preston at Lancashire County Council (2025), and continued by-election wins thereafter. While some have speculated that declining salience of Gaza could reverse this trend, there is currently limited evidence of meaningful retrenchment. Accordingly, this projection is cautiously bullish on continued success in relevant wards, with the critical caveat that this projection is not based on polling data as no good data exists on the topic.

Labour

If there is no major shift in political conditions, the defining story of this election will be Labour’s projected collapse.

Labour is currently polling at roughly 20 per cent, a twenty-first-century low. Keir Starmer’s approval ratings are deeply negative at around -47 per cent. More structurally, the Party is being squeezed from all directions: Reform in working-class areas, the Greens among younger urban voters, Muslim independents in  areas with large Muslim populations, and Liberal Democrats in affluent districts.

The model suggests Labour’s geographic base has narrowed dramatically. Of the 128 councils analysed, Labour previously won the most votes in 82. Under current conditions, that number falls to just 14. Currently, the Party is projected to hold only in authorities where it previously achieved overwhelming margins (for example, Halton, where Labour exceeded 68 per cent in 2024),
 and parts of central London with dense concentrations of professional middle-class voters, where decline appears more limited.

While it remains unlikely, it is not mathematically impossible that Labour fails to top the poll in any council. That would represent a political earthquake.

Limitations and Qualifications

Several important caveats apply

• This projection was completed in mid-February (prior to the Gorton and Denton by-election). Given current volatility, significant movement is possible.
• It models a “snap election now” scenario, not a definitive May forecast.
• Candidate lists are not finalised. The model assumes Reform, Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, and Greens stand everywhere. This will not be the case.
• Independent and hyper-local parties are not comprehensively modelled (with partial exception for Muslim independent inference).
• Due to widespread boundary changes, this projection estimates council vote share, not seat share.
• Six county councils and the newly created East and West Surrey authorities are excluded.
• Polling figures cited are aggregate averages.
• View our methodology here

As always with modelling, this is a probabilistic assessment of current conditions, not a guarantee of outcome.

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

You can buy your copy here.

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.