I rarely go to political rallies these days, but en route to the South West I thought I would stop in at Prosper UK’s ‘In Conversation’ with Andy Street.

I’ve always thought highly of Andy, particularly from his time as Mayor of the West Midlands. In a political world where many of us who were elected under David Cameron have felt that the Conservative Party has lost its way, Andy has continued to fly the flag for centre-ground, One Nation, moderate, ‘wet’ conservatism, or whatever cliché you prefer for those of us who have traditionally occupied the middle of the Conservative spectrum.

That does not mean I am completely on board with the Prosper pitch. In fact, as one of the owners of Politics UK, I am pretty happy being a ‘floater’…

In particular, I remain unconvinced by what feels like a slightly confused strategy: challenging the party leadership and its policy direction while apparently stopping short of confronting how the party is organised and influenced at local level.

As I have argued before, candidate selection matters. Anyone who watched the tactics employed by UKIP and Farage-aligned activists from the 2017 election onwards will understand how relatively small numbers of organised members can exert significant influence over the political direction of a party.

But what struck me most last night was the reception.

Having travelled to Arundells, the former home of Ted Heath in Salisbury Cathedral Close, I assumed Andy’s argument would receive a politically warm hearing. If there was anywhere you might expect an audience to be receptive to a One Nation case for rebuilding the centre right, surely this was it.

Yet even here, some of Prosper’s central arguments were challenged from the floor, from reform of the triple lock to privatisation and the role of public ownership.

The discussion was thoughtful rather than hostile, but perhaps that is the point.

The fight to rebuild the centre right may be considerably harder than Andy Street thinks.

What is Prosper?

Good question, and one that “slightly surprised” Andy.

A quintessentially conservative women in the audience awkwardly asked why more people have not heard of it? 

She wasn’t politically ill informed, earlier in the evening I had overheard her conversation about something the Prime Minister had been discussing on migration in the Times.

Street acknowledged the problem himself, accepting that the organisation had not yet done enough to break through nationally.

Launched in January 2026 and co-chaired by Street and former Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson, Prosper describes itself as neither a political party nor a traditional think tank, but a centre-right political movement. Its stated purpose is to develop policy, commission research and build a nationwide network capable of influencing the direction of centre-right politics.

Its leadership also includes former centre right politicians such as Sir David Gauke, Amber Rudd, Gavin Barwell, Sir David Lidington, and Margot James, placing it firmly within the moderate and One Nation tradition of Conservative politics.

From polling commissioned from More in Common – the new pollsters led by former Special Advisor to Conservative Education and Equalities Secretary, Nicky Morgan, Luke Tryl –  organisation argues that there are around seven million voters in Britain who sit broadly in the centre or centre right but currently feel politically “homeless”. Its central proposition is that the Conservatives cannot rebuild simply by chasing Reform voters, and instead need a broader pro-business, pro-growth and outward-looking political offer.

In his speech, Street demonstrated that Prosper is not merely interested in publishing policy papers. He spoke about building local branches, encouraging supporters to become involved in the Conservative Party and, over time, helping people sympathetic to Prosper’s politics become council and parliamentary candidates.

Prosper may have ambitions to influence the future direction of the Conservative Party, but as one audience member effectively pointed out, it first has to ensure that voters, and perhaps Conservatives themselves, know it exists.

The Triple Lock Test

Perhaps it should be obvious that plans to reform the Triple Lock may go down like a cup of cold… with an average age well above the pension threshold. 

For someone that thinks the political trap should never have been set, good on Prosper for making the argument – even if the mainstream political parties have their fingers in their ears for fear of losing the grey vote.

For Prosper this issue shows just how difficult it will be to create a movement on ideas (whether right or wrong) that divide people. 

Prosper UK has made reform of the triple lock one of its most deliberately difficult policy positions. Its welfare plan proposes replacing the current system with a smoothed earnings link, while protecting pensioners against inflation in weaker years. Prosper argues that doing so would improve intergenerational fairness and could save around £20.6 billion a year by 2050.

Street presented the policy as a test of whether politicians are prepared to tell voters uncomfortable truths. In his argument, rebuilding confidence in mainstream politics means being honest about spending pressures and accepting that government cannot promise every group protection from difficult choices.

But several in the audience did not simply accept his policy plan.

One woman challenged Street over why pensioners should be targeted, pointing out that many older people have limited means to supplement their income and continue to face rising living costs.

This is obviously not their position and Street pushed back against the suggestion that Prosper was “attacking” pensioners. As I have learnt over the years, anyone seeing headline “remove triple lock” will fail to read beyond those three words to “replace it with something else”. He argued that pensioner incomes had performed considerably better than those of younger generations over the period in which the triple lock has operated, and said the question was whether the existing settlement remained fair and sustainable.

It was an interesting exchange precisely because Street had used the triple lock as an example of the sort of political honesty he believes the centre right must rediscover. Prosper describes the policy as a way of demonstrating that politicians are prepared to explain trade-offs rather than offer voters easy answers. Street has previously called the triple lock the clearest test of whether politicians are willing to “level with people”.

Yet even at Arundells, in a room that might have been expected to be relatively receptive to his wider political argument, the consequences of that honesty proved much harder to sell.

That may be the broader lesson for Prosper. Calling for difficult choices is one thing. Persuading the people affected by them that those choices are fair is quite another.

Beyond Pensions

While I love a good chat on pensions reform, luckily for a well triggered over-65 audience the conversation ranged well beyond pensions, and in many ways helped explain the political territory Prosper UK is trying to occupy.

Street was emphatic that Conservatives should not seek a formal accommodation with Reform UK. He rejected the idea of “uniting the right”, arguing that the Conservative Party would lose moderate voters if it tried to merge its electoral offer with Nigel Farage’s. Pointing to polling by Lord Ashcroft showing that the Conservatives have the most to lose from such a deal, his argument was that Conservatives need to fight on their own ground and rebuild confidence among voters who have drifted away from the party altogether, rather than simply competing for those already attracted to Reform.

Street also stressed that this should not mean timid politics. Street repeatedly returned to the idea that the centre has to become more willing to make difficult choices, rather than allowing populists to monopolise the language of radical change. This is something I’ve talked about for years, those in the centre like me are to blame for failing to articulate their radical visions for where the country could go – instead allowing alternative extreme visions to fill that void. This was the most exciting thing Street talked about – it’s now time to put some meat on the bones.

That included immigration, where he argued for controlled migration while accepting that skilled migration remains necessary for economic growth, and energy, where he said Prosper intends to address high prices without abandoning the Climate Change Act. Housing, student finance and the challenge of winning back younger voters were also prominent themes.

With the candidate for Rejoin EU Party at the Holborn and St Pancras by election sitting in the audience (some 150 miles away from her constituency) you will be shocked to know that Europe was indeed the first question. 

Europe will be another important test. Street said Prosper has undertaken substantial work on Britain’s future relationship with the EU and acknowledged the economic consequences of Brexit. He stopped short of advocating rejoining, questioning whether that was presently realistic, but suggested there was a serious case for examining how Britain could rebuild closer economic and strategic ties. The audience reaction was meh – hoping for a full fat policy proposition they left receiving some semi…

There was also a significant organisational message. Street said Prosper wants to establish branches around the country, encourage supporters to become involved in the Conservative Party and, eventually, help bring forward council and parliamentary candidates who share its outlook.

Having seen what the ‘Kippers’ did to me and colleagues on selections after Brexit, I asked Street whether Prosper’s growing supporter base could ultimately be used to influence Conservative candidate selections, particularly given how relatively small groups of organised activists have previously been able to shape local associations and parliamentary selections. 

Street rejected the idea of “entryism”, but accepted the broader point. He said Prosper wants to establish branches in areas where it has support, encourage people who share its outlook to join the Conservative Party, help select council candidates and, over time, support people with similar views to come forward as parliamentary candidates. His distinction was that Prosper did not want to purge existing Conservative MPs, but did want to ensure the party was increasingly represented by people who reflected its political outlook. 

As I left, one of the audience approached me and said – “I think he needs to be more radical”…

Rebuilding the Centre May Be the Hard Part

Street’s central argument is persuasive in several ways – but importantly mainstream politics cannot simply complain about populism while ignoring the failures that helped create an audience for it.

He was unusually candid that Conservatives had failed to deliver sufficiently on issues including immigration, growth and public services, and that populists had moved into the space left behind. His answer is to rebuild trust through credible policies, delivery and a broader, more inclusive form of centre-right politics.

But the evening at Arundells also exposed the difficulty. Is anyone listening?

This was, symbolically at least, friendly territory. The former home of Ted Heath could hardly have offered a more appropriate setting for a defence of One Nation conservatism. Yet Street still faced challenges over pensions, privatisation, public ownership, welfare, Europe, and the direction of the Conservative Party itself.

The exchanges were thoughtful rather than hostile, (though I did feel sorry for the metaphorical lynch mob of the once Tory voter on his views over nationalisation…maybe a conversation for another day) but they demonstrated that there is no automatic consensus waiting to be rediscovered simply by invoking the centre ground.

Prosper may be right that millions of voters feel politically homeless. The harder task will be persuading them that its particular combination of fiscal restraint, economic liberalism, internationalism, and social moderation provides the answer.

For Street, the challenge is therefore bigger than defeating populism – clearly something he and his band of well meaning merry men and women cannot achieve themselves. It is proving that the centre right can once again offer something coherent enough to inspire people, difficult enough to be credible, and broad enough to win.

To find out more about Prosper UK, www.prosperuk.com

The First Ministers of Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland have declared that “Westminster’s time is coming to an end” after nationalist leaders signed a new agreement asserting the right of their nations to determine their own constitutional futures.

Welsh First Minister and Plaid Cymru leader Rhun ap Iorwerth, Scotland’s First Minister and SNP leader John Swinney, and Northern Ireland First Minister Michelle O’Neill met in Cardiff alongside Sinn Féin President Mary Lou McDonald.

For the first time since devolution began, all three devolved nations now have First Ministers whose parties support leaving the United Kingdom.

The memorandum signed by the nationalist leaders states that “no Westminster government has the right to block democracy” and says each nation should determine its future “in its own way and in its own time”.

The intervention creates a significant constitutional challenge for Prime Minister Andy Burnham, who is due to meet the devolved leaders next month.

Swinney calls Burnham the ‘last prime minister of the United Kingdom’

John Swinney went furthest in his assessment of the political consequences, describing Burnham as the “last Prime Minister of the United Kingdom”.

The Scottish First Minister argued that, if Scotland was given another independence referendum, voters would choose to leave the Union.

His remarks follow an exchange at Prime Minister’s Questions in which Burnham appeared to open the door to considering another Scottish referendum if there was clear and sustained public support.

Burnham compared the question with the provisions governing a border poll in Northern Ireland, arguing that a vote must be considered where public opinion has shifted sufficiently. However, after Swinney welcomed the apparent change in tone, the Prime Minister subsequently clarified that another Scottish independence referendum remained “off limits”.

That leaves the Government facing a difficult question: what level of democratic support, if any, would be sufficient for Westminster to reconsider its opposition to another referendum?

Wales pushes for greater constitutional powers

The immediate situation in Wales is different.

Ap Iorwerth has ruled out pursuing an independence referendum before the next Senedd election in 2030. His government instead intends to establish a national commission designed to lay the foundations for a possible future move towards independence.

However, the Welsh First Minister is seeking further devolution from Westminster, including powers over policing and youth justice, while also arguing that the power to hold an independence referendum should ultimately be devolved to Wales.

Ap Iorwerth has also challenged Burnham’s approach to the nations and regions, arguing that the Prime Minister has “a lot to learn” about the distinction between national devolution and English regional devolution.

Despite the criticism, he said he wanted a positive relationship with the Prime Minister.

Northern Ireland divisions exposed

The meeting has also highlighted the very different constitutional arrangements governing Northern Ireland.

Michelle O’Neill argued that, while Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have distinct political circumstances, they share a belief that Westminster does not adequately serve their interests.

However, DUP Deputy First Minister Emma Little-Pengelly criticised O’Neill’s involvement in the talks, accusing her of attempting to “weaponise the role of first minister”.

Unlike Scotland and Wales, the route towards a referendum in Northern Ireland is specifically provided for under the Good Friday Agreement, with the Secretary of State able to call a border poll where it appears likely that a majority would support Irish reunification.

Labour, Conservatives and Reform attack Plaid

The declaration has prompted criticism from unionist parties in Wales.

Welsh Labour leader Ken Skates accused Plaid Cymru of wanting to “use power to break up Britain”, while Welsh Conservative Senedd leader Darren Millar argued that the First Minister should concentrate on pressures facing the Welsh NHS and schools rather than independence.

Reform UK’s Welsh leader Dan Thomas similarly accused the First Minister of prioritising the break-up of the UK over NHS waiting lists and education.

The UK Government, meanwhile, said Burnham remained committed to delivering change across all four nations and “believes strongly in the union”.

Burnham faces an increasingly difficult Union question from nationalist leaders

The significance of the Cardiff declaration extends beyond whether another independence referendum is imminent.

The emergence of nationalist-led governments in all three devolved nations creates a fundamentally different political relationship between Downing Street and the governments in Cardiff, Edinburgh, and Belfast.

Funding is likely to become another source of tension. Welsh ministers have long argued that the Barnett formula disadvantages Wales, while Scotland is generally regarded as benefiting from the existing system. Burnham previously argued for reform before becoming Prime Minister but has since played down the prospect of significant changes.

When the Prime Minister meets the devolved leaders next month, the discussion will therefore stretch well beyond independence.

Burnham will have to balance his stated commitment to the Union with demands for greater devolution, arguments over funding and increasingly coordinated pressure from nationalist governments claiming that Westminster should not have the final say over their constitutional futures.

For a Prime Minister who has long championed transferring power away from Westminster, the question is becoming increasingly difficult: how far should that principle extend when devolved governments want the power not simply to govern differently, but potentially to leave the United Kingdom altogether?

Angela Rayner has ordered a major review of the Government’s local government reform programme, putting proposed council reorganisations across much of England on hold while ministers reconsider both the process and the policy behind them.

The most significant intervention concerns Essex, Hampshire, Norfolk, and Suffolk, where decisions taken earlier this year have been formally withdrawn. Reorganisation activity in another 14 areas has been paused, while proposals for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough and West Sussex will also be considered as part of the review.

Surrey is the major exception. The new East Surrey and West Surrey councils have already been established in law and are due to begin operating in April 2027.

Rayner has also confirmed that local elections scheduled for May 2027 will go ahead on existing council boundaries while the review takes place.

So why has Angela Rayner intervened in one of the Government’s biggest programmes of local government reform?

Fresh legal advice forced ministers to reconsider

The immediate explanation is concerning the legal costs and likelihood of failure.

Announcing the review in the House of Commons, Rayner said she had considered legal advice arising from judicial review proceedings and wanted to be confident that the process used by the Government was both robust and lawful.

She told MPs:

“I want to satisfy myself first that the right process is in place, that it is robust and, of course, that it complies with the law.”

Rayner also confirmed that the Government had formally notified the courts that its previous decisions in four areas were being withdrawn.

The Government has not published the legal advice, in line with the usual convention that ministers do not disclose privileged advice.

However, legal challenges brought by councils had already exposed questions about how some of the decisions were reached.

Essex is perhaps the clearest example.

The Government chose a model that would replace the existing councils across Greater Essex with five unitary authorities. But material disclosed during Essex County Council’s challenge showed that officials had recommended a three-unitary model instead.

According to Essex County Council, government officials considered the three-unitary option the strongest financially and raised concerns over the savings assumed by the five-unitary proposal. Officials from the education and health departments were also reported to have raised concerns about the selected model.

Ministers are entitled to reject civil service advice. But where a decision departs substantially from official assessments, the Government needs to be confident that the reasons for doing so can withstand legal scrutiny.

Reform-run Essex led the challenge

Opposition to local government reform has also increasingly come from councils themselves.

In Essex, Reform UK took control of the county council and quickly escalated its opposition to the Government’s proposals.

Councillor Peter Harris, the Reform UK leader of Essex County Council, described the plans as:

“ill-thought, expensive, purely ideological in nature”

and argued that they would increase the distance between residents and their elected representatives. Essex subsequently pursued judicial review proceedings against the Government.

After documents from the legal process revealed the advice ministers had received, Harris accused the Government of selecting an option that officials had warned presented greater financial risks.

For Reform, the dispute has therefore become about more than the shape of councils. It has allowed the party to argue that Whitehall was imposing structures on communities despite opposition from locally elected representatives.

With ongoing discussions on the future of devolution, that creates an uncomfortable contradiction for a Government simultaneously promising to shift political power away from Westminster.

Conservatives also questioned the financial case

Criticism was not confined to Reform-run authorities.

In Hampshire, Conservative council leaders had also challenged the model selected by the Government.

East Hampshire District Council leader Councillor Richard Millard, a Conservative, argued that the chosen structure represented:

“the most complex, high risk, expensive and financially unsustainable model”

and described it as the “worst outcome” for Hampshire residents.

Hampshire County Council, led by Conservative Councillor Nick Adams-King, also moved to pursue judicial review following the Government’s decision.

After Rayner withdrew the Hampshire decision this week, Adams-King said the move demonstrated why the council had been right to challenge the process. He argued that reorganisation should be “lawful, properly evidenced and capable of standing the test of time”.

The criticism highlights a broader problem facing local government reform. Many councils accept that structures can change, but disagree strongly about which structures would actually save money, maintain local identity, and protect services such as adult social care, SEND, and children’s services.

A legal pause has become a political reset

The legal challenges explain why ministers needed to act, but they do not fully explain the scale of Rayner’s intervention.

Prime Minister Andy Burnham had already signalled that he wanted the Government to reconsider the programme. Rayner told Parliament that Burnham had asked her to look again at local government reorganisation, and she said she wanted to test whether the proposals still met the priorities of the “new Administration and the new Prime Minister”.

The Government’s letter to council leaders goes further, acknowledging concerns not only about individual decisions but about the “scale and pace of the programme more broadly”. Ministers said it was now time to “pause and reflect”.

That makes this significantly more than a technical response to litigation.

Burnham has placed devolution at the centre of his approach to government, promising a wider “rewiring of the state” and shifting more decision-making away from Whitehall.

The question facing Rayner is therefore whether creating larger unitary councils in their current form is the best foundation for that agenda.

What happens next?

Rayner has described the move as a pause and review rather than the abandonment of local government reform.

Indeed, she told MPs that the Government still needed to “grasp the nettle” of reform to put areas in a stronger position for devolution.

A rapid review will now reconsider the affected proposals alongside the Government’s wider plans for devolution and reform of the state.

That leaves several major questions unresolved.

Will ministers continue with the principle of replacing two-tier county and district arrangements with unitary councils? Will some of the boundaries selected earlier this year be redrawn? Will greater weight be given to local consent? And will financial sustainability and service delivery become more important than creating councils of a particular size?

For councils that have already spent months preparing for abolition, mergers and new elections, answers will be needed quickly.

The most important conclusion for now is that Angela Rayner has not ended local government reform. But legal challenges have given the new Government an opportunity to reconsider how it is being delivered.

What began as a legal problem could therefore become something much larger: a fundamental reassessment of how England’s councils fit into Burnham’s wider plans to move power out of Westminster.

Henry Snowdon

Politics UK – Polling and Data Editor

There are few political principles quite as sincerely held as the ones that happen to be electorally convenient.

That is especially true of electoral reform. But is it true of the new Proportional Representation Amendment?

Under our current first-past-the-post system, winning parties will often receive a larger share of seats in Parliament than their share of the national vote. Proportional representation seeks to make each party’s share of seats reflect its share of the vote more closely.

It should therefore come as no surprise that parties disadvantaged by our existing voting system tend to discover that it represents an intolerable affront to democracy, while parties benefiting from it generally conclude that it provides strong and stable government. Occasionally, electoral circumstances change and, through what must be a remarkable coincidence, their constitutional principles change with them.

The ascension of Andy Burnham to Prime Minister has brought the question of electoral reform back to Westminster. Burnham has supported proportional representation since at least 2021, repeatedly calling for Labour to put the proposal in a general election manifesto. His position today is broadly unchanged. While still a supporter of PR, he maintains that he will not change the voting system without first securing an electoral mandate through a firm manifesto commitment. To his credit, that is a fairly honourable and democratic position. Nevertheless, a large group of his own MPs have decided that waiting patiently is overrated.

Labour MP Alex Sobel has tabled an amendment requiring the government to report on the feasibility of establishing an independent National Commission on Electoral Reform. If established, the commission would review the system used for Commons elections and could recommend reforms before the next general election. At the time of writing, the amendment is backed by 176 MPs, including 87 MPs elected for Labour in 2024.

The pattern of supporting PR out of electoral self-interest is already well established at party level. Sobel’s amendment gave me an opportunity to examine whether the same pattern extends to individual MPs. Before turning to the numbers, two examples show just how familiar it is.

Share

A Proud History

1979-1997 saw eighteen straight years of Conservative Party rule with each Tory victory during this period built on parliamentary majorities produced from minorities of the popular vote. Unsurprisingly, calls for electoral reform within the Labour Party began to grow during this period. After all, such disproportionate outcomes were continually blighting British democracy. Labour therefore entered the 1997 election promising a referendum on the system used to elect the Commons and an independent commission to find an appropriate voting system. After Labour won that election with a massive majority, the promised commission duly arrived, produced its report and was rewarded with the traditional fate of inconvenient commission proposals: being ignored. The promised referendum never happened.

Reform offers a more recent example. UKIP, the Brexit Party and Reform, all led by Nigel Farage, have spent years supporting proportional representation while winning millions of votes and almost no seats. Reform’s 2024 manifesto again promised a referendum on replacing first-past-the-post. Since then, its polling position has improved to the point where the same system could conceivably deliver the party a parliamentary majority. References to PR have disappeared from Reform’s current policy platform, and its chairman, Zia Yusuf, has declared that the party is now “firmly in favour of first-past-the-post.”

The parties occupy very different parts of the political spectrum. Their constitutional principles have shown a remarkably similar sensitivity to electoral arithmetic.

So the question is, are Labour MPs with small majorities, i.e. those that are most at risk from first-past-the-post and most likely to improve their careers after a change in electoral system, more likely to support a change than those in safe seats who are enjoying the unearned safety with which the current system rewards them?

Testing The Theory

To test the relationship between electoral self-interest and support for PR among Labour MPs, I looked at all 411 MPs elected for Labour in 2024 and compared those who signed Sobel’s amendment with those who did not. Electoral security was measured by the percentage-point gap between each MP and the second-placed candidate.

The initial results point in the expected direction. Signatories had an average majority of 16.5 percentage points, compared with 19.4 points among non-signatories. There was a small but statistically significant linear relationship between majority size and signing, with support becoming less likely as majorities increased.

The difference becomes clearer when a 30-point majority is used as the benchmark for a very safe seat. This broadly separates MPs who might reasonably worry about losing their seats at the next election from those who can afford to sleep rather more soundly. Among Labour MPs below that threshold, 78 out of 333 signed the amendment, or 23.4 per cent. Among those with majorities of 30 points or more, only nine out of 78 signed, or 11.5 per cent. Labour MPs outside the safest seats were therefore roughly twice as likely to support the amendment.

Proportional Representation Amendment – Accounting For Ideology

Electoral insecurity appears an even stronger influence on support for PR once ideology is taken into account. In modern Labour politics, support for PR has generally been stronger on the party’s left. When I divided the signatories by ideological position, left-wing MPs were heavily overrepresented among those signing from seats with majorities above 30 points. The same imbalance was not present to anything like the same degree among signers below the threshold. This made me wonder whether the effect of electoral security differed according to an MP’s ideology.

To test this, I matched 397 Labour MPs with left-right estimates produced from two Survation surveys of local councillors for Royal Holloway, University of London and UK in a Changing Europe. Councillors were asked to compare MPs’ ideological positions in pairs, with the results used to place them on a scale from zero for the most left-wing to 100 for the most right-wing. I then used these scores to divide Labour MPs into ideological quartiles, from the leftmost 25 per cent to the rightmost 25 per cent, and found a striking difference in how electoral security affected different ideological segments of the Labour Party.

Among the leftmost quarter of Labour MPs, 32.1 per cent of those below the 30-point threshold signed the pro-PR amendment, compared with 27.3 per cent of those above it. Among the remaining three-quarters of the party, the corresponding figures were 21.4 per cent and just 5.6 per cent. This suggests that, for the left of the Labour Party, electoral self-interest, by and large, really isn’t a driving factor behind support for PR, while elsewhere in the party, enthusiasm for reform is considerably easier to find among MPs with something to fear from first-past-the-post.

What The Results Show

While nothing in this data proves with absolute certainty that most of the MPs who publicly support PR have only done so after receiving deeply upsetting polling data, the wider pattern of Labour MPs in competitive seats publicly supporting electoral reform at much higher rates is difficult to dismiss.

Electoral self-interest is not the only plausible explanation. MPs in marginal seats may differ in their willingness to openly support PR for a myriad of different reasons, and this analysis did not test the many alternative explanations. Likewise, it is not the case that the signatories to the amendment were the only MPs within the party who support electoral reform, as polling data reported by LabourList shows that an electoral reform commission is supported by most of the PLP. Nevertheless, there is an obvious logic to politicians supporting policies that serve their electoral interests, and the pattern of signatures appears to support that logic.

Conclusion

Finally, I want to end on the moral implications of these results. While I have my own views on proportional representation, I don’t believe that debate is relevant to this analysis. My concern here is the process by which politicians seek to change the rules under which they themselves compete.

I care deeply about democracy, and when support for changing electoral rules varies according to how safely politicians are treated by the existing ones, scepticism is justified. Political principles are always more convincing when they survive electoral convenience.

Thousands more homes could be built around England’s railway, Underground and tram stations as the Government moves to make development in well-connected locations the default rather than the exception.

Changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), announced on Monday, will establish a default “yes” for housing within reasonable walking distance of well-connected stations, together with new minimum expectations for housing density.

It represents a significant attempt to change how England decides where new housing should go. The revised framework strengthens the presumption in favour of development in sustainable locations and means conflicting local policies will carry less weight where they are inconsistent with national decision-making policies.

The Government is also reducing some consultation requirements, while making it easier to approve developments supporting jobs, clean energy, shops, leisure facilities, AI Growth Zones, and data centres. Ministers say the reforms form part of the push towards delivering 1.5 million homes.

But beyond the battle between ministers, councils, and the planning system, the announcement poses an intriguing political question for the Conservatives.

Before the new policy was announced, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch offered a candid assessment to PoliticsUK of her own party’s record on housebuilding.

‘It helps them win elections’

Asked how the Conservatives could win back younger voters who feel locked out of home ownership, Badenoch identified insufficient supply as one of the three fundamental causes of the housing crisis.

“We have not been building enough,” she told PoliticsUK.

She then acknowledged her own party’s role in resisting development.

“Hands up, the Conservative Party is only behind Labour and the Liberal Democrats in saying no to things being built because it’s very easy for local councillors to say no,” Badenoch said.

“It helps them win elections but it’s been very bad for supply.”

Badenoch also argued that regulation was adding substantially to the cost of housebuilding, while increased demand from migration without corresponding increases in supply had contributed to higher prices. Her proposed answer was not simply redistribution between generations but greater supply, deregulation and stronger economic growth.

That diagnosis creates a potentially difficult distinction between the Conservatives’ national economic message and the incentives facing Conservative politicians locally.

And nowhere is that tension clearer than in Enfield.

The Crews Hill test

In May, the newly Conservative-led Enfield Council formally withdrew from the Government’s New Town programme following the election of Councillor Alessandro Georgiou as council leader.

The Conservatives had explicitly campaigned against the New Town proposals and, after taking control, withdrew council support for development associated with Crews Hill, Vicarage Farm and parts of Enfield’s Green Belt.

Before the change of administration, Crews Hill and Chase Park had been considered as a location capable of delivering around 21,000 homes, including family and council housing, alongside schools, GP surgeries, jobs and transport improvements. The previous council leadership said the scheme could support more trains at Crews Hill station as well as new bus, walking and cycling connections.

Crews Hill already has a railway station with services towards Moorgate in central London, placing the area squarely within the broader political debate about whether transport-connected locations should accommodate substantially more housing.

Georgiou, however, has rejected the suggestion that withdrawing from the New Town programme amounts to rejecting housebuilding altogether.

He said his administration had been elected with a clear mandate to protect the Green Belt and pledged instead to work with government on meeting housing need through a “brownfield-first approach”, unlocking underused land and regenerating town centres.

The Crews Hill and Chase Park proposal is far larger than simply constructing higher-density housing immediately surrounding a station, and opposition to one scheme does not automatically amount to opposition to all transport-oriented development.

Politically, however, the comparison is difficult for the Conservatives to avoid.

Badenoch has herself argued that local councillors have been rewarded electorally for saying “no” to development, while acknowledging the cumulative consequence has been inadequate housing supply. In Enfield, the Conservative administration was elected after campaigning against a major housing proposal in a location already served by rail.

The Government’s new planning framework now seeks explicitly to change that political equation.

Rayner: Homes and growth around transport hubs

Housing Secretary, Angela Rayner said the reforms were intended to make living close to employment and public services more attainable.

“A safe, secure home is the foundation of opportunity, but too many people are being priced out of the communities where they want to live and work,” she said.

“By unlocking thousands of homes around well-connected transport hubs, we’re helping people live closer to work, school and the services they rely on, while backing local businesses and driving growth in our communities.”

Chancellor John Healey linked the policy directly to home ownership and economic growth, arguing that government wanted to “drive growth in every postcode and help more working people into home ownership”.

Transport Secretary, Heidi Alexander said densification around well-connected stations would also improve access to jobs and services while supporting public transport, walking and cycling.

The argument from ministers is therefore straightforward: if the country needs more homes, putting them close to existing transport infrastructure should be one of the least controversial places to start.

The politics are considerably harder.

For Badenoch, housebuilding is becoming an early test of whether her emerging pro-growth Conservative offer can overcome the very local political incentives she has identified.

There is an obvious electoral reason why councillors resist unpopular developments. Badenoch has now said so herself.

The question is what happens when Conservative councils continue to do it.

If the Tory leader believes the UK cannot restore home ownership without building significantly more houses, the challenge will be demonstrating that this applies not only when criticising Labour’s planning system nationally, but when Conservative administrations face controversial developments in their own backyards.

In that sense, Crews Hill could become more than a local planning dispute. It offers an early test of whether Badenoch is prepared to confront the Conservative Party’s longstanding tension between building for growth nationally and opposing development locally.

Final thought

Independent policy institute Curia has long advocated for homes, businesses and public sector infrastructure to be built close to pre-existing transport infrastructure, making better use of existing connections while supporting economic growth, access to services and more sustainable communities.

The Government’s plans go some way towards delivering on those calls. The test will now be whether national planning reform can translate into delivery on the ground, particularly where local political pressures conflict with the need for new homes and infrastructure.

Curia continues to work with policymakers, local and regional government, industry, and public sector leaders on devolution, planning reform, and the infrastructure needed to support sustainable growth across the UK.

To find out more about Curia’s work, contribute to its research or discuss opportunities to engage with forthcoming policy programmes, get in touch with Partnerships Director, Ben McDermott at ben.mcdermott@chamberuk.com.

The Conservative Party and Enfield Council has been contacted for comment.

Image: Conservative Party and Politics UK

The result marks the end of a bizarre campaign, triggered by Farage himself when he resigned as an MP over an investigation into a personal donation he received in 2024.

The investigation into Farage is expected to resume, and could potentially trigger another by-election.

Farage himself did not attend the count, saying that “I am damned if I am going to stand on a stage, having won a resounding victory… and be demeaned and humiliated by nobodies.”

How on Earth Did We Get Here?

Farage announced his resignation as MP for Clacton, as well as his intention to represent Reform UK in the subsequent by-election, on July 7th.

This followed mounting speculation that Farage could be required to fight a by-election by the result of a parliamentary investigation.

The investigation, which was paused during the by-election campaign, surrounded an undeclared donation Farage received from Thai-based cryptocurrency investor Christopher Harborne, prior to his election as an MP at the 2024 General Election.

Farage has said that he was under “no obligation to declare something that is an unconditional, non-political, personal gift.”

Britain’s other political parties have condemned Farage’s resignation as a cynical attempt to avoid facing the consequences of the investigation.

“Nobody is going to get drawn into what is a political stunt” said the then Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper at the beginning of the campaign.

While Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch described the by-election as a “fake election, which Nigel Farage is causing to distract people from what is happening.”

The refusal of Labour, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party, and Restore Britain to stand candidates in Clacton ensured that Farage would be the clear favourite to retain his seat.

Despite the absence of the major parties, a record 34 candidates were listed on the ballot paper.

This included the satirical candidate Count Binface, whose large online profile meant he quickly became seen as the primary protest candidate.

Farage’s Increased Majority: What Does This Result Mean?

Despite Farage’s status as the clear favourite throughout the campaign, he will undoubtedly be pleased to have won the by-election, with an increased majority.

The fact he has spent much of the summer embroiled first in a parliamentary investigation, and then in an election where his leading opponent has been a sentient bin, may well have harmed the Reform UK leader’s personal image, despite his increased majority.

Farage was never likely to lose this seat. A poll from Survation conducted between July 16th and 24th put him on 73% of the vote, clearly ahead of nearest challengers Count Binface on 20%, and the Reclaim Party’s Laurence Fox on 2%.

A national poll conducted at a similar time by More in Common found that 37% of respondents wanted Count Binface to win the Clacton by-election, compared to just 32% who favoured Farage.

Reform’s poll ratings have also fallen recently.

More in Common estimated Reform had a 28% share of the national vote at the beginning of May, before the Christopher Harborne donations were first reported. This had dropped to 25% in a Yougov poll conducted the day before Farage’s resignation, and 22% in Yougov’s poll from the week before the by-election.

For Count Binface, this result marks something of a political breakthrough.

The candidate, whose real name is John David Harvey, has previously stood in the 2017 (under the name Lord Buckethead), 2019, and 2024 General Election, as well as the 2021 and 2024 London Mayoral Elections, and June’s Makerfield by-election.

This is the first time Binface has received more than 1% of a public vote. With his 26.9% share putting him clearly in second place, albeit a long way behind Farage’s 63.4%.

Binface said he was “gratified” by the result, and pointed out that “In Makerfield eight weeks ago I got 95 votes. So against Nigel Farage compared to Andy Burnham, I am 1,000 time more popular.”

Count Binface was also standing against representatives of the other main parties in Makerfield, and received much less media coverage than he did in Clacton.

What Happens Next?

The investigation into Farage’s handling of the Harborne donation can now resume, now that he has been elected as an MP.

If Farage is found guilty of misconduct then he may be temporarily suspended as an MP, or have to fight another by-election.

It is likely that the other major parties would choose to contest this second vote.

Farage himself is also under investigation by the Metropolitan Police over whether his failure to disclose the Harborne donations amounted to “misconduct in public office”.

A separate investigation by the Metropolitan Police into £500,000 worth of donations that Reform UK received from Fiona Cottrell, mother of the convicted fraudster George Cottrell, is also ongoing.

Final Thought

Nigel Farage triggered this by-election with the aim of using it to spread the narrative that it was a “people v. the establishment” contest.

That was immediately undermined by the refusal of the other major parties to stand candidates, and the unexpected popularity of Count Binface, both among Clacton’s electorate, and the country as a whole.

Reform UK’s recent decline in the polls is almost certainly partially due to the replacement of Keir Starmer as Prime Minister with Andy Burnham, but this distraction is unlikely to have helped Farage’s case.

Farage will however likely use his increased majority as evidence that the electorate support him, whatever result of the parliamentary investigation.

While the investigation into him may not be over, the man who is still bookmakers’ favourite to be Britain’s next Prime Minister, has at least survived this challenge.

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

You can buy your copy here.

Photo Credit: House of Commons

Miles Bennington

Editor – Chamber UK

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

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

Semi-Kemi

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remember Elections?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Goodluck. With That.

Kemi’s Future

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can buy your copy here.

Photo Credit:  Simon Dawson / No 10 Downing Street

To the British public and television viewers alike, the transfer of power is most visibly marked by speeches outside the iconic black door of Number 10 Downing Street. Yet the true transfer of power happens elsewhere. Behind the gates of Buckingham Palace, long-standing constitutional rituals, including the tradition known as “kissing hands,” formally mark the moment one prime minister leaves office and another begins.

The Farewell at Downing Street

The public end of a premiership begins outside Number 10, where the outgoing prime minister delivers a final speech before leaving office. These addresses reflect on achievements, acknowledge challenges, thank colleagues and family, and express hopes for the country’s future. Although highly symbolic, the prime minister remains in office throughout this speech. Only afterward do they travel to Buckingham Palace to formally resign.

Some farewell speeches have become memorable moments in British political history. Theresa May’s resignation speech in 2019 was marked by visible emotion as she spoke about serving “the country I love,” while David Cameron’s 2016 departure followed the Brexit referendum that ended his premiership. However, these speeches only represent the public end of a premiership. Constitutionally, power has not yet changed hands.

Where the True Shift in Power Happens – Kissing Hands

The actual transfer of power takes place at Buckingham Palace. The outgoing prime minister formally resigns to the monarch, who then invites the incoming leader to form a government. Only after accepting this invitation does the new prime minister officially take office.

This ceremony is traditionally known as “kissing hands,” a phrase dating back to a time when ministers literally kissed the sovereign’s hand as a symbol of loyalty and acceptance of office. Today, the gesture no longer takes place, but the phrase remains as a reminder of the monarchy’s constitutional role. Although the private audience lasts only a few minutes, it is this quiet ritual, rather than the speeches outside Number 10, that marks the formal transfer of power.

A New Prime Minister Takes Office

Following their meeting with the monarch, the new prime minister returns to Downing Street and delivers their first address to the nation. These speeches aim to reassure the public and establish the priorities and tone of the incoming government.

Not every transition takes place at Buckingham Palace. In September 2022, Liz Truss was appointed prime minister at Balmoral Castle in Scotland, where Queen Elizabeth II was staying. It was the first time in modern history that a new prime minister was appointed outside London. Two days later, the Queen died, making the meeting one of her final official acts.

Once a prime minister arrives at Number 10, the focus shifts from ceremony to governing. Among their first briefings are national security matters, including Britain’s nuclear deterrent. The prime minister receives procedures for authorising nuclear weapons and writes confidential “letters of last resort” to commanders of Britain’s nuclear submarines, which are only opened in the event of a catastrophic attack.

Some opening addresses have become defining moments in British politics. Tony Blair’s 1997 speech promised a “new dawn” after eighteen years of Conservative rule, while the rapid succession of Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak in 2022 showed how quickly Britain’s system can respond to political uncertainty. Winston Churchill’s departure in 1945 also remains notable, as the wartime leader was replaced by Clement Attlee after losing the general election.

The first speech outside Downing Street may signal a new political era, but the constitutional transfer has already taken place behind the doors of Buckingham Palace.

Final Thought

The process of changing a British prime minister reveals the balance between tradition and modern democracy. While elections and party leadership contests determine who becomes prime minister, constitutional customs complete the formal transfer of power.

Although rituals like “kissing hands” no longer resemble their original form, they continue to symbolize the monarch’s role in appointing Britain’s leaders. While the public watches the scenes outside Number 10, the decisive moment happens quietly at the Palace, allowing Britain to replace its leader quickly while maintaining continuity.

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

You can buy your copy here.

Photo Credit: Prime Ministers Office

Miles Bennington

Editor – Chamber UK

British politics seems determined to ruin the summer. Can’t we get through one world cup without changing Prime Minister?!

Now Nigel Farage has decided to make it all about him in a desperate attempt to reverse his flagging fortunes. The self styled man-of-the-people leader of Reform UK has spent the last few months either defending or trying not to defend a £5 million personal “gift” from a crypto billionaire and over the weekend the Times released a report into similarly murky dealings between Farage and convicted fraudster, “Posh George” Cottrell.

Yesterday he announced his resignation as an MP (will his time in office outlast Keir Starmer’s premiership?) and intention to stand in a by-election with the intention of regaining his lost legitimacy. He tweeted: “If I lose, they win. If they win, you lose. If you lose, Britain will forever be broken and nothing will change. We will prevail.”

Calm down dear.

Due to the ongoing parliamentary investigation into his donations it’s quite possible that he will be suspended as an MP later this year, leading to a recall petition and another by-election. Not another one!

As such, all major political parties have ruled out standing a candidate against Farage.

LibDem Plan

Due to the arcane rules of the House of Commons, an MP cannot actually resign from their seat directly. An MP who wishes to resign, instead has to be appointed to an “office of profit under the Crown” which disqualifies them from being an MP.  They are usually appointed either “Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds” or “Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead”.

These offices are in the gift of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

One option floated by Leader of the Liberal Democrats, Ed Davey, is that the Government could delay appointing Farage to one of these offices until the parliamentary investigation is complete. This would prevent there being two by-elections and save the cost of a second election.

Binface

If the by-election does go ahead it currently seems that the main opposition to Farage will be Count Binface. The perennial joke candidate, who continues to shine an absurd light on British politics, may find the Count a harder opponent than he anticipates.

After all, Farage only won 46% of the vote in Clacton in 2024 and his opponents may be more motivated to give him a reprimand for calling an unnecessary by-election at the height of silly season.

Final Thought

This is where the politics of attention gets you. A multi-millionaire, leader of a political party that is ahead in the polls whining about his supposed victim status, is about to face off against an “independent space warrior” that wears a bin for a helmet.

Perhaps it’s no better than we deserve. In our social-media dominated politics, being able to hold attention is more valuable than being able to govern effectively. Perhaps Farage is right that in making this story all about him and not the donors that fund him, for reasons unclear, then he will regain the attention of the public and control of the narrative.

But just perhaps, this time, voters will give him the bin.

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

You can buy your copy here.

Photo Credit: ChatGPT and our ongoing political meltdown

Speaking to Senior Political Correspondent-at-Large at the Daily Mail Christian Calgie, Badenoch argued that recent political developments suggested her party was beginning to recover following its 2024 general election defeat, while setting out her priorities should the Conservatives return to government.

Kemi Badenoch has “a plan to get Britain working”

Badenoch said the Conservatives had emerged from their election defeat more united, pointing to the party’s victory in the Aberdeen South by-election as evidence that its recovery had begun.

“We are a common sense party with an actual plan to get Britain working and we can unite the country,” she said.

While acknowledging there was “a long road ahead”, Badenoch said recent electoral successes demonstrated that there was now “a path” back to government after what she described as the party’s worst ever election defeat.

She also criticised Labour’s handling of the public finances, arguing that any future Prime Minister would need to explain how increased defence spending would be funded.

“If he cannot fund defence… then we should have a general election,” she said, referring to the prospect of Andy Burnham entering Downing Street. Badenoch argued that the next Budget would be the obvious opportunity to set out such funding while maintaining she had been consistent in not calling for elections simply because a governing party had changed leader.

On the economy, she argued that governments must be willing to make difficult decisions rather than prioritising short-term popularity.

“If the books weren’t balanced… that’s why it fell apart,” she said, reflecting on the economic turmoil of 2022 under Liz Truss (during which period she was Trade Secretary), and warning that borrowing without a credible plan could provoke a market reaction.

Immigration, Reform UK and economic growth

Questioned on competition from Reform UK, Badenoch rejected suggestions of any electoral pact with Nigel Farage and said her focus remained on preparing the Conservatives for government.

“I’m coming up with an entire plan for government,” she said, citing policies on energy security, welfare reform, defence funding and economic growth.

She also defended changes to Conservative immigration policy, acknowledging mistakes made while the party was in government.

“We are very sorry. We’ve acknowledged that mistakes have been made,” Badenoch said, adding that the Conservatives now had “the toughest immigration policy that’s out there.”

She repeated calls to stop small boat crossings and deport foreign criminals, arguing that MPs unwilling to support the revised policy should not remain Conservative parliamentarians.

On artificial intelligence, Badenoch compared the technology to the emergence of the internet in the 1990s and argued that government should create the right conditions for investment rather than attempting to direct the sector.

She said lower industrial energy costs, reduced regulation, better access to capital and the development of sovereign AI capability would allow the UK to remain internationally competitive.

Housing was another major topic, with Badenoch identifying limited supply, migration and wider economic conditions as the principal causes of rising house prices. She argued that increasing housebuilding, reducing regulation and abolishing stamp duty would improve affordability while insisting that stronger economic growth remained the long-term solution.

“I’m like the Borg”

Asked whether she had any doubts about becoming Prime Minister, Badenoch said she believed she had the necessary experience while continuing to develop as a politician.

“I think I would do a good job. In fact, I think I’d do better than a good job,” she said.

Describing her approach to leadership, she added: “I’m like the Borg, basically, for those of you who are Star Trek fans. I’m always adding to information, always getting better.”

Badenoch said she regularly sought advice from former Conservative leaders including David Cameron, William Hague and John Major, arguing that drawing on the experience of others made her better prepared for government.

The interview concluded with a discussion of comparisons between Badenoch and Margaret Thatcher. She said she admired the former Prime Minister’s willingness to take difficult decisions, build a strong team and remain focused despite criticism.

Badenoch argued that modern politics had become increasingly tribal due to social media and said her aim was to “bring the country together” through what she described as a programme of “common sense” government.

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

You can buy your copy here.

The incumbent Prime Minister explained: “Every decision I’ve taken has been about putting the country I love first. That is why I will resign as leader of the Labour Party.”

He also outlined the probable trajectory for selecting his replacement: “I will ask the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party to set out a timetable, with nominations opening on the 9th of July and completed by the summer recess. In the case of a contest, this will ensure a new leader is in place before Parliament returns in September.”

Voting In Labour’s Leadership Contest

Unlike a general election, the wider public is not granted a say in Labour’s leadership contest. Instead, eligible members will select the Party’s next leader. Those who have maintained continuous party membership for at least six months before the ballot timetable is announced will be entitled to participate.

Labour employs an ‘Alternative Vote’ system to elect a new leader, whereby voters rank candidates in order of preference. If a candidate receives more than 50 per cent of first-preference votes, they win outright.

However, if no contender secures a majority, the lowest-ranked candidate is eliminated. Their ballots are then transferred to voters’ next preference. This process of redistribution is repeated until a single candidate secures the majority of votes.

Who is Eligible to Run?

Now that Starmer has announced his resignation, Labour’s leadership election process has automatically been triggered.

To enter, candidates must be Labour MPs and secure the backing of at least 20 per cent of the Parliamentary Labour Party, equivalent to 81 MPs. Candidates must also receive support from either 5 per cent of Constituency Labour Parties (CLPs), or a minimum of three affiliated trade unions representing 5 per cent of affiliated membership.

Which MPs Could Be in The Running to Replace Starmer?

Several figures have been linked to a leadership bid, but so far, only Andy Burnham has formally announced his candidacy. Initially, he was expected to face competition from former Health Secretary Wes Streeting, who resigned from Starmer’s cabinet following Labour’s poor performance in May’s local elections.

However, Streeting has since ruled himself out of the race and endorsed Burnham’s candidacy. He claims that having spoken with Burnham, he is convinced that the former Mayor of Greater Manchester can lead a party which is “inclusive, united, and in touch with the lives of the people this party was founded to represent.”

Leadership Contest or Coronation? What to Expect in the Coming Months

In the aftermath of Starmer’s resignation, the National Executive Committee (NEC) will be responsible for overseeing Labour’s leadership election process. The body is expected to formally approve the timetable proposed by the incumbent PM, with applications opening on 9 July and concluding before Parliament rises for summer recess.

If Burnham is the only candidate to enter the leadership contest, he would automatically win. As head of the governing party, he would then be invited by the King to form a government, assuming the role of Prime Minister.

However, should other MPs throw their hats into the ring, they will begin to seek support from colleagues, CLPs, and affiliated trade unions with a view to qualifying to stand in the leadership contest. As their campaigns take shape, members can expect a series of hustings events across the country, granting prospective leaders the opportunity to set out their vision for Labour’s future.

Once nominations have closed, the ballots are issued and cast: the final stage in the process of selecting Britain’s new Prime Minister. 

Photo Credit:

Featured Image: Lauren Hurley/No.10 Downing Street

In-Text Image: Andy Thornley via Flickr

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

You can buy your copy here.

Following Andy Burnham’s Makerfield victory, the outgoing Mayor of Greater Manchester is now expected to challenge the Prime Minister for leadership within a matter of days. Sir Keir Starmer has said he has no intention to resign, insisting that it would be a “bad thing for the country”, at a time of domestic and geopolitical uncertainty.

There are however, indications to the contrary. Burnham’s victory is the latest manifestation of a public appetite for political change following Labour’s disappointing performance in May’s local elections. With more than 100 Labour MPs publicly calling on Starmer to step down, and the outgoing mayor’s ostensible popularity, could a Burnham-led Labour Party mark the “turning point” Britain supposedly needs?

Manchesterism: Is Andy Burnham’s Makerfield Victory “A Final Chance to Change”?

Andy Burnham’s Makerfield victory can be attributed in part to his track record of visible change as Mayor of Greater Manchester. He has built this positive reputation around achievements including bringing buses back under local control through the ‘Bee Network’, and facilitating economic growth in his constituency at twice the national rate.

He attributes these successes to his own political philosophy of “Manchesterism”, that is, a “distinct economic and political model rooted in devolution, long-term planning, and good growth”. In a recently published article by Politics UK, he referred to Manchesterism as “both a way of governing and a strategy for rebuilding a modern industrial economy”.

If successful, Burnham is likely to champion this devolved strategy of governance in Parliament, creating a “new model of public services based on integration and collaboration rather than fragmentation and competition”, by granting more autonomy to local-decision makers. In doing so, he hopes to overcome national inequalities by empowering the North.  

What Could Andy Burnham’s Makerfield Victory Mean for The UK Economy?

Burnham, in a speech celebrating his victory earlier today, stressed the need for “an economy that works for everybody”. He referenced a need to overhaul Britain’s current economic model, which he claims is designed to accommodate London’s financial and political centres, whilst leaving communities like Makerfield across the North and Midlands, behind.

The new MP claimed that national growth would therefore start with policies enacted from the ground up, which work for people across the country as a whole. This would include a more interventionist approach, whereby the government actively supports British businesses, invests in infrastructure, and encourages the growth of domestic industries. Central to his vision is a programme of reindustrialisation, which could create new jobs and counter a decade of economic decline in the aftermath of Brexit.

Parliament’s Impending Leadership Challenge

However, despite the momentum generated by Andy Burnham’s Makerfield victory, his path to the Premiership is far from decided. Starmer has made it clear that he intends to contest any impending leadership challenge, insisting that a change of Prime Minister would be damaging for the country at a time of international uncertainty.

Meanwhile, Burnham’s popularity may not be as straightforward as the by-election suggests. A recent YouGov poll found that his favourability ratings have declined since mid-May, during the period that saw Labour’s internal revolt against Starmer, the resignation of Wes Streeting, and growing speculation surrounding the newly-appointed MP’s own political ambitions.

This suggests that while Burnham continues to command strong support in Greater Manchester and among a faction of Labour representatives, the wider British public remains divided over whether he can deliver meaningful change on a national scale.

For some, Andy Burnham’s Makerfield victory represents a fresh political vision centred on devolution, economic renewal, and regional empowerment. For others, the MP embodies yet another figure in Labour’s ongoing internal power struggle, rather than a genuine break from the politics voters have grown increasingly frustrated with.

Ultimately, the significance of Andy Burnham’s Makerfield victory extends beyond yesterday’s results. His chance at becoming Prime Minister will depend on whether he can persuade a majority of MPs that his vision offers a credible alternative to the present mode of governance. The outcome of the by-election is therefore consequential not only on a regional scale, but for the future of British politics in its entirety.  

Photo Credit: Andy Burnham’s “Thank you Tweet” on X

In-text Image: Rwendland/Wikimedia Commons

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

You can buy your copy here.