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

Photo: CEO, Silverstone Communications, Geri Silverstone, Member of Parliament for Bracknell, Peter Swallow MP. (Silverstone Communications)

In conversation with advanced compute specialist at HP, James Quigley, at the recent Get Britain Growing South East conference, Member of Parliament for Bracknell and Education Select Committee member, Peter Swallow MP, set out a vision for a broad, human-centred education system that balances AI and STEM capability with communication, empathy, and adaptability, arguing that the real opportunity lies not in fearing AI but in equipping people to use it well.

Preparing People, Not Just Systems, for an AI Future

James Quigley
Perhaps we can start by grounding this in something tangible. There’s a lot of excitement, and a fair amount of anxiety, about what artificial intelligence (AI) means for education and skills. From your perspective, how should we be thinking about preparing people for a future shaped by AI?

Peter Swallow MP
I think we all know that in a future that will be dominated by AI, the skills to function in the future workforce – and, of course, a lot of that is skills needed to work with AI – are essential. That feels uncontroversial. But I also think it’s really important, actually, that when AI is going to be taking a lot of the weight in lots of roles, we don’t lose sight of the human-centred skills.

AI is never going to be able to replicate the ability to have a conversation, or the ability to have empathy with another person. If anything, I think those things are going to be more important than ever. So, when we’re thinking about the skills we need in an AI future, yes, technology- and science-centred skills absolutely matter, but so too do communication, collaboration, and problem-solving skills – the things that a narrow curriculum can sometimes sideline.

Education as Adaptability, Not Memorisation

James Quigley
That balance between technical capability and human skills feels critical. Does AI pose a threat to more traditional forms of education? Is that something you wanted to pick up here? Do you think the advent of AI is concerning for those more historic forms of education?

Peter Swallow MP
Not really, no – or at least not in the way people sometimes frame it. There’s so much history out there that you can learn now. It’s even easier than just going to Wikipedia and googling it. You can have a whole conversation about something, in much more depth, than was ever possible before.

But that actually reinforces my point. The purpose of education has never been – and should never have been – about teaching people facts alone. It’s not about how much you can tell me about the Battle of 1066 or Thermopylae. The point of education, broadly defined, has always been to give people the skills they need to take on the next problem, apply those skills and solve it.

A Broader Curriculum for an AI Age

James Quigley
So do you see opportunity there, rather than something to be fearful of?

Peter Swallow MP
Very much so. That purpose of education is more important in the age of AI, not less important. I fundamentally believe that government, through the curriculum and assessment review, is looking at a wider curriculum – one that puts more arts and humanities front and centre, alongside much more emphasis on AI and STEM subjects.

People sometimes argue that those things are at odds with each other, but I fundamentally think that’s wrong. The way we make sure we are ready for the next stage is by having that broad curriculum, which allows us to develop the broad set of skills that will be needed in tomorrow’s world.

Adapting Fastest, Not Inventing First

James Quigley
That’s helpful, particularly in the context of what we’ve been hearing today [at the Get Britain Growing South East Conference] about skills pipelines and workforce readiness. From an industry point of view, one concern is whether education systems can adapt quickly enough. How optimistic are you that policy can keep pace?

Peter Swallow MP
I think it has to. If we accept that AI will be embedded across the economy – and I don’t think there’s any serious argument that it won’t be – then the question isn’t whether education changes, but how well and how quickly it does so.

What gives me some optimism is that there is now a much broader recognition that education can’t just be about memorisation or narrow specialism. It has to be about adaptability. And AI, if used properly, can support that rather than undermine it.

Used well, it allows people to explore subjects in more depth, ask better questions and make connections across disciplines. That’s true in schools, universities, and workplaces. The risk isn’t AI itself; the risk is using it badly or not equipping people to use it thoughtfully.

James Quigley
If you connect that back to the wider economic picture, what does this mean for how regions like the South East position themselves?

Peter Swallow MP
On AI, it’s not necessarily the country that invents the technology that wins. It’s the country – or the region – that adapts its economy best to use it. Through skills, training, and employer adoption, the UK is well placed to seize that opportunity.

But that does require leadership. It requires policymakers, employers, and educators to be aligned, and it requires us to think about infrastructure, skills, and community building together, rather than in silos.

James Quigley
That’s a strong note to end on. Thank you.

Final Thought

What emerges most clearly from this conversation is a shared rejection of the idea that AI diminishes the purpose of education. Instead, it sharpens it. Peter Swallow framed AI not as a substitute for human capability, but as a force that makes human judgment, communication, and adaptability more valuable. The discussion moves beyond familiar binaries – technical versus creative, STEM versus humanities – and lands on a more pragmatic viewpoint: the systems and regions that succeed will be those that combine technological fluency with broad, transferable skills.

There is also a notable emphasis on pace and alignment. The question is not whether education and skills systems will change, but whether they can do so quickly and coherently enough to match how AI is embedding itself across the economy. The conversation points to adaptability as the organising principle for the next phase of education and workforce development, with AI acting as an enabler rather than a threat. Taken together, the exchange offers a grounded, policy-relevant case for why skills, leadership, and regional co-ordination – rather than technological novelty alone – will determine who benefits most from the AI.

This conference was sponsored by HP.

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

As to why students are increasingly turning to Reform, the answer is clear: degrees no longer ensure employment after graduation, and young people, noting that Reform are one of the few parties speaking up about it, are realising that Nigel Farage may just have the solution. Speaking to young supporters of Reform, there seems to be a consensus among them that universities have become breeding grounds for left-wing ideologies, rather than educational institutions, thus meaning that the majority of degrees, including what Farage has termed “-ology” subjects, are useless in regards to obtaining well-paid jobs.

One Politics student at Birmingham University told us that they believe “there are many pointless degrees out there that ultimately lead to nothing more than debt”, questioning “whether some courses are setting students up for the real world”.

Similarly, Jayden Palmer, a Reform UK candidate and influencer, also revealed to us that he believes universities have “tilted so heavily toward ideological courses while ignoring whether they actually prepare students for the real economy”. It is clear that these students feel they have been left behind by the educational system, their futures left unsupported by universities. But, is this really why students have flocked to Farage’s party?

Perhaps the real reason lies within the demographics of Students for Reform. The national leadership is overtly male, run by Jack Eccles, supported by Honorary President Matt Goodwin, who has expressed some questionable rhetoric on women over the course of his career. Most Reform society leaders are also male, although few do have female members as executives, although sparse amounts attend events. There is clear reasoning behind this – young, white, male students feel as though they’ve been forgotten, left disadvantaged by diversity and inclusivity schemes, and thus have turned to Reform for support.

Samuel Hussey, a prospective Reform UK candidate and social media influencer, stated that “young men have nothing to believe in”, arguing that “if you’re a white working-middle class man this country, almost every aspect of society is against you” as a result of “years of radical woke madness,” adding that young men are rejecting the “new social expectations that place us under everybody else”. He then digressed that “young men need a future they can believe in” and that they “want and deserve to feel proud again”. Clearly, students believe that Reform will enable them to escape from the “New Woke Order”, if that exists, and access greater support.

Whilst there is evidence to suggest that working class, white boys have been left behind by state education, how Reform would challenge that is questionable. Universities increasingly offer greater access schemes for minority groups, such as BAME students and transgender students, yet do not offer support which academically performs the worst – working-class men. Considering that Reform have committed to lower funding to universities, it is unlikely that any new support schemes for male students would emerge.

Referring to Farage’s rhetoric around students issues, Brandon Morley, Co-President of Birmingham University Reform Society, said that there are wider grievances among young people and he would take “a more hardline stance” on immigration, believing that Reform hasn’t gone far enough. So whilst Reform may be attracting youth members based on their commitment to reversing inclusivity schemes, some right-wing students do not feel as though Reform is focusing fully on them.

As a result of this, many students, who previously supported Reform, have defected to Restore Britain, with a number of related societies popping up across the country, often replacing Reform societies. A spokesperson for the Restore Britain Society at York St John said that many in their generation feel misled by institutions and are seeking alternatives, thus have left Reform in the hope that Rupert Lowe will be willing to go further. The question is now, can Reform maintain their student base, or will they lose it to Restore, or even the Conservatives, as they begin to advance in the polls.

However, it would be fallacious to pretend Reform is welcome on campuses. Speaking exclusively to Politics UK, a member of the York Reform Executive Committee described incidents where individuals shout “fascist” or cough/spit/throw drinks at them, implying that “unsympathetic staff often leak our locations to left-wing groups”.

A spokesperson for St. Andrews Reform Society said that they receive “the most mockery and bitterness online”, as compared to other political societies. Earlier this year, Reform students at St. Andrews were confronted by left-wing protestors, which led to Suella Braverman releasing a statement condemning both the university and the students for “political violence”.

In another incident, whilst speaking at a PPE society event at Warwick, George Finch, the 19-year-old Reform Leader of Warwickshire Council, faced an attempted assault by a left-wing protestor, who, after shouting and running at Finch, attempted to throw his shoe. After the event, Finch stated that “you have to be brave nowadays to go to our educational establishments, adding that universities are “poisonous” environments that treat those with his views as “the enemy” and arguing that events are disrupted through “violence and intimidation” which “shut down legitimate avenues of debate”.

Although Jack Eccles, the President of Students for Reform, and the National Leadership responded to the incident at St. Andrews, a Reform member at the University of Birmingham stated that Eccles provided no support after they informed him they had received violent threats and felt unsafe on campus for being openly Reform.

Several Reform societies are tipped to defect to Restore Britain, as a Young Restorers organisation is in the early stags of development, stating that the Party and student national leadership alike have done far too much to little to support students.

Students for Reform, although currently unstable, has the potential to be transformed into a movement that could tip support to Farage in the next general election. It is clear that young voters are turning to the right, feeling left behind by state education, however, which party they will commit to is not yet certain. After all, Restore is on the rise, with dozens of young Restore Britain influencers appearing across Instagram and Tiktok, and the Conservative Party is once again polling highly among men aged 18-25. If Reform can provide stability to their student wing, perhaps the Teal Revolution will continue to spread across universities. Time will tell whether it is really “Time for Reform”.

Featured Image Credit: Gage Skidmore

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.

Not as a social add-on. Not as a discrete planning challenge. But as core national infrastructure in the same way we treat energy, transport, or water.

The Spring was chaired by Crawley MP, Officer of the All Party Parliament Group (APPG) for the Southeast and Gatwick Diamond Growth Gateway, and Chair of the APPG for Wellbeing Economics, Peter Lamb. The South East sprint brought together local authorities, infrastructure providers, health leaders, and industry to co-produce solutions to overcome the combined reality that the pressures facing the NHS, adult social care and local government budgets are inseparable from the conditions people live in.

Cold homes, overcrowding, displacement across borough boundaries, digital exclusion – these are not background issues. They are upstream drivers of demand.

The core recommendation from the report is that treating housing, health, and digital infrastructure as separate policy silos has produced fragmented delivery and rising cost. The consequence is a system permanently reacting to crisis rather than preventing it.

Digital Poverty Is a Structural Failure, not a Lifestyle Choice

Perhaps the most striking finding is the scale of digital exclusion within social housing.

Despite £20 billion of investment in full-fibre infrastructure over the past decade, many social homes – especially in the South East – remain unconnected. Residents frequently rely on pay-as-you-go mobile data, shared devices, and insecure connections.

This is not just an inconvenience. Participants heard that it locks people out of:

• GP appointments and virtual wards
• Education and employment platforms
• Welfare systems and financial management
• Remote monitoring and preventive care

The sprint characterises this explicitly as a market failure. Social tariffs exist but are complex to access and poorly designed for the households who need them most. In effect, the people who would benefit most from connectivity are least able to secure it.

That mismatch has consequences. Without connectivity, councils cannot manage housing stock proactively. Damp and mould are detected late. Vulnerabilities go unseen. Health systems default to more labour-intensive, reactive models of care.

The question the report forces policymakers – in the South East and nationally – to confront is blunt: if we would not accept a home without electricity, why do we accept one without broadband?

The Connected Homes Proposition

Rather than produce another abstract call for reform, the sprint set out a practical Connected Homes model.

At its core, this means:

1. Universal, reliable broadband as standard in social housing
2. Simplified and automatic access to affordable tariffs
3. Integration with housing management, health, and care systems
4. Local digital skills and device support
5. Clear governance and accountability for data and outcomes

This is not technology for its own sake. It is about creating the conditions for prevention.

A connected home enables predictive maintenance rather than emergency repair. It supports adult social care to blend virtual and in-person support. It reduces unnecessary travel and helps residents access work and training. It underpins Net Zero ambitions through smarter energy use.

Critically, the business case is credible. Evidence cited during the sprint suggests that place-based connectivity pilots can become self-funding over time through service savings and improved asset management. Even a single household moving into sustained work delivers fiscal savings of £25,000–£30,000 per year.

In growth terms, that is not marginal.

The South East Pressure Cooker

The South East context makes the case even sharper.

Population growth, displacement from London, temporary accommodation and constrained land supply are creating structural strain across Kent, Surrey, Sussex, and surrounding areas. Families are moved miles from schools, GPs, and employment. Children lose continuity of care. Adults struggle to maintain work.

Planning debates still focus overwhelmingly on housing numbers. Far less attention is paid to whether those homes are connected, integrated, and capable of supporting long-term wellbeing.

The sprint’s diagnosis is uncomfortable for policy makers – we have embedded exclusion into new developments by failing to treat digital infrastructure as a prerequisite for healthy communities.

From Pilot to Policy Delivery

The report proposes a place-based pilot – connecting a defined number of social homes within a single authority area – with clear metrics on service demand, housing condition, resident wellbeing, and economic participation.

The wider ambition is national alignment. Housing, health, digital and local government departments must stop operating in parallel and start sharing ownership of outcomes.

This is where the report becomes politically interesting. It does not argue for endless new funding streams. It argues for alignment, sequencing, and leadership.

If government is serious about shifting from hospital to community, from analogue to digital, and from sickness to prevention, the home is the obvious place to start.

Where Things Go Next

The challenge now is intent.

The technology exists and the infrastructure investment has already been made. Local authorities are willing to pilot. Industry has indicated it can shoulder significant upfront cost where demand is coordinated.

What has been missing is the political confidence to declare broadband a core housing standard and to align planning, social tariff reform, and health strategy accordingly.

The opportunity is significant, with healthier residents, reduced pressure on acute services, stronger local labour markets, and more resilient communities. In growth terms, connected homes are not a side project – they are foundational.

As the Get Britain Growing agenda gathers pace, this report provides a tangible example of what system reform looks like in practice – a scalable intervention rooted in the places people live.

The real test will not be whether we agree with the analysis. It will be whether national and local leaders are prepared to act on it.

Join the Discussion: Get Britain Growing 2026

To find out more information about the 2026 programme of Get Britain Growing, register to receive more information at www.chamberuk.com/newsletter.

(Photo: Silverstone Communications)

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.

Chris Sherwood

Chief Executive Officer at the NSPCC

Nudification: drawing on evidence from Childline cases and online monitoring, Chris Sherwood argues for stronger legal duties on AI developers and platforms to prevent the generation of child abuse material.

At the NSPCC, we are deeply concerned about the dangers children are facing from artificial intelligence.

While AI presents wonderful opportunities, it also poses significant safety risks to young people.

It’s a powerful tool that can easily be misused. Generative AI has made it terrifyingly easy for offenders to create abuse material at scale.

We’re no longer talking about hypothetical dangers or future threats. The harm is happening right now, in real time, to real children, and the systems meant to protect them are nowhere near strong enough.

Nudification Harm is Already Happening

Reports of AI-generated child sexual abuse material are growing at an alarming rate. The Internet Watch Foundation recorded a fourfold increase in this material in their annual report published last year.

Perpetrators are using image generators and nudification apps to create hyper-realistic child sexual abuse material, which can be used to abuse and blackmail young people.

Publicly available open-source AI models, such as Stability AI and Black Forest Labs, have been exploited by perpetrators to create child sexual abuse material.

It’s likely we only know a fraction of these cases, as offenders can edit and manipulate open-source models out of sight of the platforms and law enforcement.

This is simply not good enough, and we can’t allow it to continue.

Recent reports that X’s Grok has been misused to create child sexual abuse material and enable the creation of semi-naked and naked images of adults and children are inexcusable, and they show that this illegal content can be generated on popular social media sites and then used to harm children.

Devastatingly, through Childline, we are hearing from young people who experience abuse caused by the misuse of generative AI.

One 16-year-old boy, who contacted the service, told us that a girl claiming to be his age made fake sexual images of him and threatened to share them to his friends unless he sent her £200.

We are also hearing firsthand from young people about the devastating impact on their safety, mental health, and wellbeing when nude images of them are created and shared.

Each contact we receive illustrates to me that much more needs to be done to address the harms children tell us they are experiencing because of the misuse of AI.

Where the Law Falls Short

Currently, there is a patchwork of different legislation that protects children against some AI risk. This includes the Online Safety Act, which goes some way to mitigating the dangers by requiring many AI companies to conduct risk assessments and remove AI-generated child sexual abuse material when detected.

However, many AI chatbots are not in-scope of the Act. Grok was alarmingly easy to exploit and put children at risk of having illegal material generated of them, which could be used to bully, extort or torment.

It’s clear that the Online Safety Act does not require services to robustly test their training data to ensure child sexual abuse material cannot be generated, before models are rolled out.

The Crime and Policing Bill, currently progressing through Parliament, has a number of new measures to tackle AI-generated child sexual abuse material, which we welcome. These include criminalising image generators that have been designed to create this illegal content and banning nudification apps.

Criminalising these functions is a positive step. However, I believe that a more preventative approach is needed to ensure this content is not created in the first place.

Without stronger, comprehensive safeguards, we leave loopholes that offenders can exploit, putting children at serious risk.

A Preventative Duty of Care for AI

The NSPCC is calling for the creation of a Statutory Duty of Care for Children’s Safety, ensuring that there are comprehensive protections in place for children across all AI products and services.

As part of this Duty of Care, AI developers would be required to robustly test their models to ensure that child sexual abuse material cannot be generated on their service.

This would mean ensuring no images of children are included in datasets and requiring platforms to work with trusted partners to safely test models using sets of known child sexual abuse material.

The UK’s world-leading AI Security Institute, which already conducts tests on some of the most-used AI platforms in the world, should also support the effort to protect children.

We believe their role should be expanded to help prevent the creation of child sexual abuse material.

This Duty of Care would also ensure that children are always protected when they interact with AI-generated content, such as being able to report fake nude images of themselves.

I also think that practical guidance for parents and education in schools should be provided to give everyone a better understanding of the risks of this new technology.

These requirements and new support would help ensure that services are held fully accountable for protecting children from this horrific type of online abuse and stopping illegal activity at source.

We must act now. Unless technology companies are compelled to use every tool available to combat this sinister and illegal abuse, children will continue to pay the price.

The digital world is a fundamental part of young people’s lives; they must be able to enjoy its benefits whilst staying safe.

Image Credit: Shutterstock

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

You can buy your copy here.

Seven locations have been identified for consideration, with each expected to deliver at least 10,000 homes and several expected to deliver up to 40,000 homes over the coming decades.

The proposed locations are:

• Tempsford, Bedfordshire – up to 40,000 homes built around a new East West Rail station
• Crews Hill and Chase Park, Enfield – up to 21,000 homes
• Leeds South Bank, West Yorkshire – up to 20,000 homes
• Manchester Victoria North, Greater Manchester – at least 15,000 homes
• Thamesmead, Greenwich – up to 15,000 homes
• Brabazon and the West Innovation Arc, South Gloucestershire – up to 40,000 homes
• Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire – around 40,000 homes as part of a major expansion

The developments are intended to be designed around modern neighbourhood principles, including walkable communities, public transport connectivity, shared green space and local high streets.

Housing Secretary, Steve Reed said the programme represents a major shift in how communities are planned and delivered:

“People want real change – homes they can afford, local infrastructure that works, and good jobs in thriving communities.

Our next generation of new towns marks a turning point in how we build for the future.

From the ground up, we’re planning whole communities with homes, jobs, transport links, and green spaces designed together – so we can give families the security and opportunities they deserve.”

Delivery and Development Corporations

To support delivery, the Government has appointed four interim advisers to the New Towns Unit: Lyn Garner, Ian Piper, Emma Cariaga and David Rudlin. Some new development corporations are also expected to be established to drive delivery, similar to the model used in Stratford and Ebbsfleet.

The developments will follow new placemaking principles focused on affordable and balanced communities, with schools, health services, transport infrastructure and digital connectivity built in from the beginning. The Government says it is taking a cross-government approach to ensure utilities, education, healthcare and digital infrastructure are planned alongside housing.

Sir Michael Lyons, who previously chaired the New Towns Taskforce, welcomed the announcement: “I warmly welcome the Government’s decision to progress seven of the locations recommended by the New Towns Taskforce and to continue discussions in the remaining areas.

“The consultation provides an opportunity to reflect on lessons from the past and inform a new generation of new towns that can support sustainable growth and create places of lasting value. This is just the ambitious response we hoped for.”

National Housing Bank to Launch

Alongside the new towns announcement, the Government confirmed that the National Housing Bank will launch on 1 April with up to £16 billion in financial capacity. The bank is intended to unlock more than £53 billion of private investment and support the delivery of over 500,000 homes.

Chancellor, Rachel Reeves said planning reform and investment were central to the Government’s economic strategy: “For decades this country’s planning system has been a direct obstacle to building new homes, ramping up costs and pricing young people out of the housing market.

“Two years ago, I promised that we would grasp the nettle of planning reform. Now we’re planning to build a new generation of new towns, opening up the expansion of our most dynamic cities and raise up new communities.

“Our economic plan is the right one. Through stability, investment and reform we are building a stronger and more secure economy.”

Simon Century, Chief Executive of the National Housing Bank, said: “From day one, we’ll use deep expertise to back innovative, large-scale delivery – accelerating the supply of high-quality affordable homes and thriving places people want to live.”

Peter Vernon, Chair of the National Housing Bank, added: “As a Public Finance Institution, the Bank can move quickly and develop solutions that work for communities. We’ll work with partners across the sector to drive delivery at pace.”

Regional Growth and Regeneration

Several regional leaders said the new towns would support economic growth and regeneration in their areas.

Tracy Brabin, Mayor of West Yorkshire, said: “The Leeds South Bank New Town is a once in a generation opportunity to deliver up to 13,000 new homes in one of the UK’s fastest growing cities.

“The development will be supported by the West Yorkshire Mass Transit System and vital investment in Leeds Station, to unlock jobs and opportunity in the heart of the North.

“Alongside our partner Leeds City Council, we will deliver the new, high-quality homes and communities that local people need and deserve.”

Helen Godwin, Mayor of the West of England, said: “The country’s fastest growing regional economy here in the West of England is the perfect place for a new town: Brabazon and the West Innovation Arc. As we continue to create jobs and growth, we need to build the right homes in the right places – with the services and infrastructure that people need.”

Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham said: “We are glad to see Victoria North getting this backing from the Government. It is one of the UK’s most ambitious regeneration projects right at the heart of its fastest-growing city-region.

“Victoria North will see the building of 15,000 new homes, including many for social rent, alongside high-quality green spaces close to our city centre.

“We believe it is the model of what a new town should be, with modern homes linked to high-quality public transport.”

Additional Funding and Brownfield Development

The Government also announced an additional £234 million grant fund to help Mayoral Combined Authorities unlock 8,000 new homes on brownfield land. Areas expected to benefit include Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, the East Midlands, Greater Lincolnshire, Hull and East Yorkshire, Tees Valley, West of England, and York and North Yorkshire.

Six additional locations – Adlington, Heyford Park, Marlcombe in East Devon, Plymouth, South Barking and Wychavon – were assessed but will not be taken forward as new towns at this stage, although they may still be developed through existing housing programmes.

Consultation

A public consultation on the proposed locations and draft planning policy is open until 18 May. Final decisions on the new towns will be confirmed later this year following consultation and environmental assessments.

Taken together, the new towns programme, the launch of the National Housing Bank and new brownfield funding form part of the Government’s wider strategy to address the housing shortage, support first-time buyers and create jobs across the construction and infrastructure sectors.

Curia’s Housing and Infrastructure Research Group

Curia’s Housing and Infrastructure Research Group will be holding a series of roundtables in conversation with local council and regional council leaders alongside the Yimby groups on a cross-party basis to discuss ways in which these new towns can be delivered. Working with Politics UK, ideas will be communicated to local and regional leaders. To find out more about this programme and to get more involved, please contact Partnerships Director, Ben McDermott at ben.mcdermott@chamberuk.com.

Photo: Housing Minister, Matthew Pennycook visits a housing development (Photo: Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government)

Health innovation could add £246 billion annually to UK productivity – almost 10% of GDP – yet proven technologies still take years to reach NHS frontlines, often benefiting those with the most resources first.

At an NHS innovation summit in Barnsley in  February, South Yorkshire Mayor Oliver Coppard made the case that devolution offers the practical mechanism to accelerate adoption, narrow inequalities, and turn health improvement into regional economic growth.

The Accelerating NHS Innovation Summit, organised by not-for-profit independent policy institute Curia, brought together NHS Integrated Care System (ICS) leaders, innovators, academics, policymakers, and councillors to examine how the North of England can translate innovation ambitions into everyday care.

Devolution and place-based leadership

The Mayor framed devolution not as bureaucratic restructuring but as bringing decision-making closer to the communities that experience health challenges most acutely.

Drawing on his direct engagement with constituents – whether at Tesco, the pub, football matches or Parkrun – he described mayors as uniquely positioned to notice what is changing, understand why it is happening and respond with policies tailored to local reality.

“Devolution gives us the ability to notice what’s changing, understand why it’s happening, and respond quickly with policies that match the reality on the ground,” Coppard said.

He acknowledged that national policymakers care deeply about health outcomes but argued they simply do not have the time or structural capacity to look as closely as regional leaders can.

Health as economic policy 

The Mayor positioned health improvement as inseparable from economic success, pointing to Health Innovation Network research showing healthier populations could add £246 billion annually to UK productivity, which is almost 10% of GDP.

“Improving health isn’t just morally right. It’s fundamental to economic success,” Coppard told the summit.

South Yorkshire has embedded that principle into its local growth plan, with initiatives like the Olympic Legacy Park demonstrating how prevention, research, and economic regeneration can reinforce one another.

The Mayoral Combined Authority is deploying devolved powers over transport, skills, regeneration, and innovation to align health outcomes with regional prosperity.

The reality of health inequality

For South Yorkshire, that proximity reveals inequalities that national systems often miss. Women in Barnsley have the lowest life expectancy anywhere in the country. Across the region, a 20-year healthy life expectancy gap persists – meaning people in some communities spend two decades longer in poor health than those in others.

Coppard argued these divides harm individuals, families, and communities while holding back economic growth. He argued that innovation must be used deliberately to close these divides rather than reinforce them.

Without that focus, he warned, new technologies risk reaching those already closest to opportunity first – leaving the communities facing the greatest health challenges further behind.

“If we are serious about leading the way, then we need to see innovation helping to narrow inequalities rather than widening them,” Coppard said.

Building an innovation ecosystem in South Yorkshire 

Coppard outlines how South Yorkshire has assembled the infrastructure to translate ambition into practice. The Olympic Legacy Park in Sheffield serves as a focal point, bringing together the Mayoral Combined Authority, Sheffield City Council, the NHS, universities, and industry to create a space where prevention, sport, wellbeing research, and economic regeneration reinforce one another.

Within that ecosystem sits the Advanced Wellbeing Research Centre, where patients, clinicians, and researchers collaborate to test new health technologies.

Soon, the sites will host the National Centre for Child Health Technology, a £22 million partnership between the NHS, central government, and Mayoral Combined Authority, which is contributing £6 million to develop robotics, virtual reality, and tools supporting children’s long-term conditions and mental health. 

When innovation stalls 

Despite those assets, Coppard was candid about structural barriers that devolution alone cannot overcome. Proven innovations, he noted, often take years to move from pilot to frontline adoption, with early beneficiaries disproportionately those already closest to resources and opportunity. He cited new obesity medicines as an example, observing that the vast majority of early prescriptions have been private.

“Too many proven innovations take years to reach the frontline. Too often, the first beneficiaries are those with the most resources,” Coppard said.

He identified three areas requiring national action. 

First, the imbalance in research funding must be addressed – it cannot be right, he argued, that a single London institution receives the same public research funding as the entire North of England. Coppard has written to ministers proposing an Institute for Preventive Health Research for the North, recognising that regions with significant health challenges also possess world-class research assets.

Second, the NHS itself must accelerate adoption. Procurement processes need to become more agile, evaluate faster, and the pathway from pilot to scale clearer.

Crucially, workforce and digital infrastructure require sustained investment, as innovation only works when clinicians have the time and tools to adopt it.

Third, innovation must be woven into economic strategy in ways that narrow rather than widen inequalities, with programmes co-designed alongside communities and tested in real-world settings.

Where mayors can act

During the fireside discussion led by former Shadow Minister and member of Curia’s Health, Care, and Life Sciences Research Group Advisory Board, Paula Sherriff, Coppard was asked how mayors can influence health when the NHS remains nationally governed.

His answer focused squarely on prevention – the domain where mayoral powers over transport, employment, skills, and economic policy create conditions for innovation to thrive.

He pointed to a striking statistic: one in five bus journeys in South Yorkshire relates to healthcare, whether nurses, doctors, or care workers travelling to work or patients attending appointments. A functioning healthcare system, he argued, cannot exist without a functioning transport system.

South Yorkshire is bringing buses back under public control, creating an opportunity to align transport planning with public health and prevention strategies in ways that fragmented private operators and national oversight cannot achieve.

“Prevention doesn’t happen through the NHS in the way it could or should, because the NHS is always under pressure to deal with immediate acute problems,” Coppard observed.

Mayors, he suggested, face urgent pressures but not identical ones, enabling them to convene actors across skills, transport, public health, innovation, education, and universities in ways Whitehall structurally cannot.

Leading through outcomes

Asked what would demonstrate that Yorkshire is genuinely leading on NHS innovation in a year’s time, Coppard focused on outcomes rather than activity.

Success would mean innovation reaching people who need it most, benefits not confined to those already closest to opportunity, and services designed around how people live rather than how institutions are organised.

The summit’s broader agenda – focusing on women’s health and obesity pathways through Curia’s sprint methodology – reflected recognition that innovation depends not only on technology and funding but on commissioning structures, workforce support, data infrastructure, and political will.

Coppard’s contribution underscored that for regions like South Yorkshire, devolution provides the mandate and tools to align those elements more effectively than national systems acting alone.

Advertorial: This report and event was sponsored by NOCN

The North West stands at a moment of real opportunity. With strong civic leadership, industrial diversity and a growing appetite for innovation, the region has many of the ingredients needed to drive long term growth. Yet one constraint continues to cut across every ambition discussed by policymakers, employers, and educators alike: skills.

At the Get Britain Growing: North West Conference in Liverpool, leaders from local government, business, education, and civil society came together to tackle that challenge head on. Under the theme Building Skills, Building Britain, the Sprint Two workshop focused on a central question: how can the region build a workforce that keeps pace with technological change, supports decarbonisation, and delivers inclusive economic growth?

Participants agreed skills are not a policy add on. They are economic infrastructure – as essential to productivity as transport, energy, or digital connectivity.

Skills as the backbone of regional growth

Across the workshop, participants stressed that growth ultimately depends on people. Businesses may invest in new technologies, but without the right skills in place those investments cannot deliver their full value. At the same time, learners and workers need clear, trusted pathways into meaningful employment.

The problem, participants agreed, is that the current skills system is too fragmented. Funding streams are short term and often tied to qualifications rather than outcomes. Curricula lag behind industry need. Collaboration happens, but too often in silos.

As one participant put it, “Skills planning still operates by sector, by institution, or by geography – but the future workforce cannot be built in isolation.”

The result is a persistent mismatch between what employers need and what learners are taught, particularly in fast moving sectors such as low carbon construction, advanced manufacturing, and digital technology.

Building future skills and reskilling the workforce

Discussions identified two parallel priorities for the region.

The first is building future skills, ensuring that young people entering the workforce are equipped for emerging industries rather than yesterday’s jobs. Participants highlighted how further education curricula often remain rooted in traditional trades, while new roles increasingly demand hybrid skillsets that combine digital, technical, and environmental knowledge.

“Skills are not an adjunct to growth – they are its foundation.”

The second is reskilling and upskilling the existing workforce. As technology reshapes every sector, adults need flexible ways to retrain, transition between roles, and sustain employment over longer working lives. Modular learning, micro credentials, and employer led training were all seen as critical to making lifelong learning a reality rather than a slogan.

Crucially, participants argued that vocational and technical routes must be valued on a par with academic progression. Cultural perceptions continue to undermine apprenticeships and technical training, despite their proven value to employers and individuals alike.

Collaboration as both challenge and solution

While the need for collaboration was widely accepted, the workshop participants were candid about how difficult it can be to achieve in practice. Employers and educators often use the same language to mean different things. Where employers talk about hands on capability, education providers are constrained by qualification frameworks and funding rules.

Small and medium sized enterprises face particular barriers. Many lack the capacity to offer placements or apprenticeships, even though they account for a large share of employment growth. Without practical support, skills policy risks being shaped by the needs of larger organisations alone.

Yet collaboration also emerged as the most powerful lever for change. Participants called for employers and educators to act as equal partners, co designing curricula, sharing facilities, and aligning training with real labour market demand.

Local Chambers of Commerce were highlighted as natural convenors, able to bridge the gap between business need, education provision, and regional strategy.

From ideas to implementation

A defining feature of the sprint methodology is its focus on action. Rather than producing another diagnosis of the problem, participants worked through practical models that could be implemented and scaled.

Among the most compelling proposals was the creation of a ‘Coalition of the Willing’ – a cross-sector alliance of employers, educators, trade bodies, and local authorities committed to delivery rather than discussion.

At the heart of this approach is a Network of Business Clinics, where learners work on real world challenges set by employers. These clinics offer practical experience for students while helping businesses, particularly SMEs, to solve live problems without the burden of formal placements.

Participants also proposed Industry Learning Partnerships, providing ongoing forums for curriculum co design, shared training, and joint investment across administrative boundaries. Alongside this, a Regional Skills Innovation Platform would bring together labour market intelligence, training opportunities, and careers information into a single, trusted hub.

Digital tools, including AI assisted careers guidance, were seen as essential enablers – provided they are implemented transparently and with appropriate safeguards.

“What we need is something tangible and visible – real pathways into opportunity, not just strategies.”

The role of national policy

While much of the focus was rightly on regional action, participants highlighted national policy must provide stability rather than churn. Frequent changes to funding and qualification rules make long-term planning almost impossible.

There were strong calls for Skills England, Local Skills Improvement Plans, and mayoral combined authorities to be better aligned, reducing duplication and competition. Stable, outcome-based funding, clearer national standards in priority sectors and earlier, more realistic careers education were all identified as necessary foundations.

As one participant noted, without consistency at the national level, even the most innovative regional initiatives struggle to scale.

A model the North West can lead

The North West has the leadership, partnerships and civic energy needed to pioneer a more joined up approach to skills.

But success will depend on moving beyond goodwill to shared accountability. Employers must be empowered – and expected – to shape, fund and validate skills. Education providers need the freedom to adapt quickly. And collaboration must be structured, not informal.

If those conditions are met, the region has an opportunity to show how skills policy can be translated into place-based leadership, and how investment in people can deliver growth that is both sustainable and inclusive.

In the words of the workshop’s closing reflection, building skills is not just about filling vacancies. It is about giving people the tools to help build Britain’s future – and ensuring that opportunity grows alongside innovation.

This Sprint Session was sponsored by international charity NOCN which delivers future-fit skills solutions with social impact for Colleges, training providers, employers and individuals.

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