Lorna Slater was elected as the new MSP for Edinburgh Central on Thursday’s election, the Scottish Greens’ first ever constituency win in Scotland post-devolution.

She replaces the Scottish National Party’s Angus Robertson, who has served as Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, External Affairs and Culture since being elected MSP in 2021 and was previously party deputy leader under Nicola Sturgeon.

Robertson also served as a Westminster MP for Moray between 2001 and 2017, and as Leader of the SNP in the House of Commons from 2007 to 2017. 

Slater won with a majority of 4,582 (13%) and a total share of 36%, ahead of Labour’s James Dalgleish (23% total share), with Robertson coming third at 21.9%. 

Who is Lorna Slater?

Lorna Slater was previously co-leader of the Scottish Greens alongside Patrick Harvie from 2019 to 2025. 

Slater also served in the Scottish Government as Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity between 2021 and 2024, one of the first Green politicians in the UK to serve as a government minister.

Originally from Calgary, Canada, Slater moved to Glasgow in 2000 after graduating with a degree in electro-mechanical engineering design. She worked in the tidal energy sector before joining the Scottish Greens in 2014 following the Scottish Independence Referendum. 

She has stood in elections for the Scottish Greens on several occasions: during the 2016 Scottish Parliament election, the 2017 general election, and a 2019 City of Edinburgh Council by-election. 

What are Lorna Slater’s priorities?

Slater’s campaign focused on expanding free bus travel, implementing rent controls, free school meals, improving the accessibility of childcare, as well as taxing the ‘super-rich’. 

Her campaign crowdfunder says: ‘Lorna is a proud advocate for LGBT+ rights and a welcoming, compassionate, Scotland. She will stand up for her principles against the backtracking of the SNP and the rise of Reform.’ 

What does this win mean for the Scottish Greens?

Lorna Slater’s election to Edinburgh Central is the first time the Greens have won a constituency contest. 

She described the party’s first constituency win as ‘a significant milestone’

“The win] is amazing for us. It shows how that progressive agenda really has support, especially from young people.”

The Scottish Greens also gained three seats on the Edinburgh and Lothians East list (including Q Manivannan, the first openly transgender person elected to Scottish Parliament), as well as one each in the North East and Mid Scotland and Fife regions. 

How does this result compare to the rest of Scotland?

The SNP won their fifth election in a row with 58 seats (-6), but without an outright majority. They were followed by Labour at 17 (-4) seats. Reform beat the Greens at 17 seats (+17) to 15 (+6), followed by the Conservatives at 12 (-19) and the Liberal Democrats at 10 (+6). 

Malcolm Offord, leader of Reform UK Scotland, said his party should be designated the ‘main opposition’ as they won a greater share of the votes than Labour; Anas Sarwar, leader of Scottish Labour, said his party was ‘hurting’ and would continue to fight for change. 

Ross Greer, co-leader of the Scottish Greens, said they and the SNP have a ‘mandate to deliver’ a second referendum on Scottish independence and that his party would ‘stand up to bullies’ Reform UK. 

Featured Image via Scottish Greens, Flickr.

Thursday 4th September 2025 saw ScotRail play a major role in the Scottish Parliament. The recent abolition of peak fares and the railway’s performance since its 2022 nationalisation were debated extensively during both the First Minister’s Questions and a members’ business debate led by SNP MSP Bob Doris.

If viewed from the SNP narrative, the scrapping of peak fares can be seen as a key benefit of having ScotRail in public ownership, allowing the railway to be run for the nation’s benefit rather than for private profit.

The SNP has strategically used its transport policy to bolster the case for Scottish independence. First Minister John Swinney hailed the nationalisation of ScotRail and the abolition of peak fares as key examples of a Scottish government delivering for its people. This narrative frames the policies as uniquely Scottish solutions that demonstrate the benefits of devolved governance, contrasting with the approach taken in the rest of the UK.

The SNP had also cited the importance of railway as a crucial tool for tackling the climate emergency by encouraging a long-term shift from cars to more sustainable train travel, and argued it directly helps constituents with the cost-of-living crisis by making travel more accessible and significantly cheaper.

Scottish Conservatives View:

However, the Conservatives have accused the SNP of a hypocritical and shameless “U-turn” on the issue of peak fares, and continued their criticism of nationalisation of ScotRail as a solution.

During a members’ business debate, Sue Webber MSP, Scottish Conservative transport spokesperson, forcefully argued that the SNP had made the “disastrous decision” to reintroduce peak fares last year following the end of the pilot scheme.

Webber stated that the SNP was trying to take credit for a policy they were effectively forced into adopting, and they had originally fought against the Conservative’s motion to keep them scrapped.

While welcoming cheaper fares, the Conservatives have argued the policy doesn’t fix the underlying problems with ScotRail under public ownership, and that things are “manifestly worse than they were under Abellio”. Webber described ScotRail as unreliable, with frequent cancellations and underinvestment, and that some passengers (e.g. Club 50 railcards) still face time restrictions for discounts, meaning the policy isn’t as universal as claimed.

Scottish Labour View:

Labour had welcomed nationalisation and the peak fare scrap, but framed it as a victory for their long-standing campaign for trade unions, heavily criticising the SNP handling of the issue. During the debate, Richard Leonard MSB of Scottish Labour and convener of the RMT union, rejected the SNP narrative of government success, seeing any progression as a union victory. Leonard stressed that removing peak fares (which they called a “tax on workers”) was a key demand of rail unions like the RMT, and condemned the SNP for scrapping the initial pilot,
arguing that reintroducing peak fares for the past year had needlessly hurt workers financially.

Labour also joined the Conservatives in criticising the SNP U-turn, quoting the SNP Transport Secretary’s previous justifications for ending the pilot (that it “didn’t achieve its goals” and “mainly benefited wealthier passengers”).

Scottish Greens View:

The Scottish Greens celebrated the abolition of the unfair “tax on workers”, with Mark Ruskell MSP framing it as a successful policy they had championed and helped secure since initiating the original pilot scheme.

Success of Nationalisation

To move beyond these conflicting political narratives, an analysis of key performance data is therefore essential to objectively measure the true impact of ScotRail’s nationalisation since 2022.

Utilising the Train Operating Company (TOC) key statistics from the Office of Rail and Road on the seven TOCs with significant service in Scotland, ScotRail’s performance both post-nationalisation and post-Covid can be assessed.

Number of Passenger Journeys:

The first area to inspect is the number of passenger journeys. On the graph above, ScotRail’s dominance is clear, approaching 100 million passenger journeys pre-Covid. While this can be explained as ScotRail often holds a monopoly over rural stations, the more interesting piece of information is that despite ScotRail failing to match its pre-Covid numbers, so are the other TOCs.

When inspecting the trends of growth post-Covid, ScotRail is outperforming other TOCs in terms of returning to their pre-Covid numbers. Post-nationalisation in 2022, passenger growth rates
were maintained, continue to outperform other TOCs.

This implies that ScotRail’s nationalisation cannot be written off as “worse than under Abellio” as Webber had claimed.

Service Reliability and Punctuality

A primary goal of nationalisation was to improve the quality of service for passengers. In surveys by the independent watchdog Transport Focus, customers consistently rank reliability and punctuality as the number one factor to improve train journeys. Anecdotally, I agree; there is no worse feeling than a late train that feels like it already cost £1 million.

As shown in the graph above, ScotRail continues to outperform rival TOCs in terms of percentage of trains on time, with post-Covid numbers outperforming that of pre-Covid.

In terms of post-nationalisation, the government has maintained its dominant performance in percentage of trains on time, once again indicating success.

When assessing the performance of TOCs in terms of delays, the best metric is the number of delay minutes from the TOC on itself. This excludes issues with National Rail or other TOCs that may delay passengers, and solely focuses upon the performance of individual TOCs.

A comparison of the number of delay minutes indicates that ScotRail once again matches the trends set by other TOCs, and even outperforms them with a lower increase in delay minutes per million journeys. This supports the SNP narrative of success.

Interestingly, the outlying TOC and worse performer is Caledonian Sleeper, another TOC operated by the Scottish government. However, considering nationalisation occurred when Serco’s contract ended and was not renewed in 2023, recent downward trends implies a nationalised Caledonian Sleeper is performing better post-Nationalisation.

Passenger Experience and Accessibility

A final area of comparison involves the number of customer complaints per million passenger journeys. The trend in the number of complaints provides insight into passenger satisfaction. While a very high number can be negative, a downward trend in complaints post-nationalisation would suggest a better passenger experience.

When inspecting Complaints Closed per million journeys, it is clear that ScotRail’s nationalisation has not worsened the service. During Abellio’s management, ScotRail maintained low numbers of complaints. Post-nationalisation, the number of complaints continued to drop, bucking the trend faced by other TOCs post-Covid in which complaints rose.

Overview:

The recent debate over the abolition of peak fares highlights a deep political divide, positioned within the wider narrative over the success of ScotRail’s nationalisation. While the SNP champions it as a victory for public ownership, the Conservatives decry the service as a failure, and both Labour and the Greens claim the policy as their own hard-won victory.

Beyond the political rigmarole, objective performance data showcases that a nationalised ScotRail is demonstrably outperforming its private-sector counterparts. It is leading the way in post-pandemic passenger recovery, maintaining superior levels of punctuality, and achieving a continuous decline in customer complaints at a time when other operators are seeing them rise.

Ultimately, the data cuts through the political noise, revealing a nationalised service that is performing well.

Scotland gains tangible and significant benefits from being a part of the UK. Public spending routinely exceeds the UK average by a substantial margin per person, funding hospitals, schools, transport, and community projects. This is not a one-way subsidy but a reflection of collective budgeting: pooling resources so that every region can maintain vital services, even when economic conditions vary locally.

However, Reform UK seeks to upend this arrangement. Their proposals aim to overhaul or scrap the mechanism that determines Scotland’s funding share, reducing support and fostering division between nations. These ideas go beyond routine policy debates; they strike at the collaborative spirit underpinning the Union.

When figures like Nigel Farage suggest cutting Scotland’s powers or scaling back its funding as a means of “reform,” they misunderstand how unity endures. Threatening to withdraw authority or tighten the purse strings does not fortify bonds; it hands the SNP fresh arguments about grievances and unfair treatment. Casting Scotland as a drain, rather than a partner.

In contrast, we maintain that Scotland’s strengths are best exercised within a robust UK framework. We endorse devolution, not as a stepping-stone to separation but as a mechanism for responsive local governance. While it is true that the current Scottish Parliament has sometimes been used more for constitutional rhetoric than for service delivery, the remedy is to improve its performance, not dismantle it. Our focus should be on enhancing accountability and ensuring that decisions genuinely benefit communities.

Properly deployed, devolved powers allow us to tackle Scotland-specific issues while still drawing on the scale and stability of the wider Union. At its best, the United Kingdom thrives on shared responsibility, collective investment, and democratic collaboration. Every nation brings something to the table and reaps the rewards of its participation. We are committed to upholding a balanced partnership.

Noise from Reform UK may grab headlines, but it does not reflect the convictions of most Unionists, who understand that building up our shared framework is preferable to hollowing it out.

Beyond funding formulas and constitutional debates, the Union offers practical advantages that resonate with daily life. Defence cooperation, for instance, ensures that citizens across the UK benefit from shared security arrangements rather than each nation bearing full responsibility alone. Collaborative responses to emergencies, whether public health challenges or natural disasters, depend on coordinated planning and resource pooling. In research and innovation, UK-wide grants often support work in Scottish universities and institutions, linking them to wider networks that boost scientific advances and economic growth. These examples remind us that interdependence is the foundation of resilience.

Economic interdependence extends to trade and markets. Scottish businesses selling into the broader UK market benefit from unified regulations and standards that reduce friction. Equally, projects such as cross-border transport links, energy interconnectors, and regional development schemes gain from oversight and investment at the UK level. While local authorities and the Scottish Government must drive delivery on the ground, the Union provides a scale and expertise that can be difficult to replicate in isolation. Highlighting these connections can help people see beyond abstract arguments to the concrete ways in which cooperation enhances prosperity.

Simultaneously, our commitment to devolution demands that decision-making remains close to those it affects. Local accountability encourages innovation: councils and agencies can pilot new approaches tailored to community needs, and successful models can be shared across the UK. We should champion mechanisms that strengthen the scrutiny of public spending in Scotland, ensuring that every pound is spent efficiently. When the Scottish Parliament demonstrates effective governance, it reinforces the case for retaining and improving devolution, rather than undermining it.

We should provide personal anecdotes which highlight communities that are benefiting from UK-wide initiatives: rural areas being supported by national infrastructure schemes, and research teams receiving funding via UK grants. Such narratives ground the argument in lived experience, showing voters how the Union translates into real improvements in their lives.

It is also important to honestly address concerns. Where systems fall short, we must acknowledge the challenges and propose solutions rather than default to blame.

Why Scotland in the United Kingdom still matters

Ultimately, preserving Scotland’s place in the Union is not an act of nostalgia but a forward-looking choice. This reflects the belief that our nation flourishes best when connected to its neighbours through shared institutions and mutual obligations. This does not preclude change; indeed, it demands the continual improvement of how we govern and fund public services.

In the run up to the next Scottish election our arguments must be rooted in original, concrete propositions: clear plans for enhancing devolution’s effectiveness, proposals for transparent funding reviews with phased implementation, and stories that illustrate the everyday advantages of cooperation.

By framing the case around practical outcomes rather than slogans, we can present a persuasive vision: a Scotland that makes the most of devolved powers and a United Kingdom that stands together to deliver security, prosperity, and opportunity for everyone.

This marks the largest peacetime investment in defence from the United Kingdom since the Cold War of the 1980s and serves as a harrowing sign of the direction the world finds itself heading.

One thing must be made clear – the government is right to make this investment in defence and should have the full backing of every British political party.

On matters of national security, politics must be pushed aside and a cross- party consensus must be formed which embodies a shared interest to not just protect the country, but to keep global tensions at bay.

With today’s announcement, the government has taken a necessary and overdue step to meet the threats of an increasingly volatile world.

UK boosts defence spending to five per cent amid rising global tensions

Increasing defence spending to five per cent of GDP is not a headline-grab; it is a signal to adversaries and allies alike that Britain is serious about protecting its people, interests and values.

This uplift will enable meaningful investment in our armed forces, intelligence services, cyber capabilities and long-range deterrence.

For too long, defence has been managed in the margins; today’s announcement changes that. It sends a message that the UK will no longer be caught off-guard by global threats – it will be prepared to meet them.

The largest threat to the West, which has become prevalent in the last two weeks after strikes from Israel, is the Iranian regime and their bid to create a nuclear weapon.

Intervention from President Trump on three key nuclear sites, which has the support of both the UK government and the Conservatives, will no doubt create a sense of unease from US and UK citizens; however, these strikes to minimise the nuclear threat were completely necessary.

A nuclear weapon in the hands of the Iranian regime will mean another hostile threat to contend with. A threat which, in retrospect, we would have hoped to eradicate whilst we still had the chance, with US intervention being the only way to minimise this threat, with President Trump’s strike being proportionate to the perilous situation at hand. The apparent ceasefire announced by Trump between Israel and Iran will serve as welcome news to the increasingly hostile situation in the Middle East.

Even without the events of the last fortnight, there has been a steady buildup of tension in international relations between many countries across the globe.

As one of the closest allies of the biggest global force, being the United States, the United Kingdom needs to be prepared to protect the shared interests of our nations, meaning putting more capital towards being prepared.

Right now, Britain looks frail on the defence front and must anticipate global events to deteriorate and act accordingly. In order to act accordingly, the resources must be facilitated, which this boost in defence spending brings about.

De-escalation in the Middle East, as Starmer has put it, is now the main objective of the UK government; however, the Prime Minister must be cautious not to attempt to downplay efforts to eradicate a legitimate threat for the sake of being politically savvy.

The Prime Minister, your political fortunes are rarely in your hands. Starmer will quickly realise what Prime Ministers in the past have had to contend with; doing the right thing on matters of national security means you have to sacrifice your popularity ratings.

History has shown what happens when the UK is caught flat-footed. In the 1980s, it took the shock of the Falklands invasion to jolt a generation of policymakers into realising the value of readiness. Today, it should not take a direct crisis to remind us of that same lesson. The cost of preparedness may be high, but the cost of regret is always higher.

As close allies, the UK and US must now move forward with both resolve and restraint. Military strength must be matched by diplomatic judgement. Escalation cannot be a default setting, nor can paralysis. A credible defence posture gives our nations leverage, not license. In the weeks ahead, decisions must be made with cool heads and clear objectives.

A call for cross-party unity on defence

But one thing is certain: showing weakness in the face of nuclear ambition or regional aggression is no longer an option. There is growing concern that even after the ceasefire has been announced that Iran intends to continue in their bid to develop a nuclear weapon, creating a situation of prolonged tension in the region that the events of the last two weeks may unfold again.

At a time of rising global instability and asymmetric threats, Britain must stand ready – and stand united. Defence is not a party-political issue, but a national imperative, with Foreign Secretary David Lammy and Shadow Foreign Secretary Priti Patel showing that unity over the despatch box on Monday as the House was updated on the Middle East. Whatever divides our politics, the duty to protect this country must not be one of them. The government has taken the right step; now, cool heads must prevail whilst simultaneously acting with conviction and readiness when necessary. The ball is in President Trump’s court as to where the conflict goes.

Featured image via Shutterstock.

The intention of the Plan is to better support the creative workforce, with the end goal being to secure the United Kingdom as the “number one destination worldwide for investment in creativity and innovation”.

Significance

As of 2025, the UK Creative Industries draw in £17 billion through business investment, contributing £124 billion per annum (5.2 per cent GVA). If the Creative Industries Sector Plan was to succeed in accomplishing all four of its aims, this figure would increase to £31 billion and secure the United Kingdom as a strong contender in the industry’s international competition.

As of 2019, the Creative Industries have shown consistent growth of 6 per cent annually, and as of 2025 employ 2.4 million individuals. Investment in the creative workforce on this scale will not only enhance the competitive status of the UK’s Creative Industries but also facilitate the growth of the industry, funding the creation of thousands of new jobs nationwide.

The Four Key Aims

The Creative Industries Sector Strategy is arranged into four key aims. These are to transform cross-cutting support, boost growth in higher-potential sub-sectors, realise the potential of Creative Industries clusters, and deliver joint commitments from government and industry working in partnership.

1. Transforming cross-cutting support

Research and development investment is due to increase at both public and private levels, with the intention to support the creation of Intellectual Property for the Creative Industries. The intention is to secure the UK as the most accessible location to set up and invest in creative businesses, offering a wide range of financial support using the £380 million boost in funding.

The UK government aims to develop a resilient and diverse workforce, working alongside both businesses and freelance creative workers to ensure needs are met and a healthy relationship is maintained. This level of government support will hopefully incentivise those in the industry to choose the United Kingdom as their desired location for setting up their businesses and investing in the United Kingdom’s Creative Industries, leading to an increase in GVA and stabilising the position of the sector.

2. Boosting growth in our highest potential sub-sectors

The Sector Plan identifies: Film and TV; Music, performing, and visual arts; Video games; and Advertising and marketing as the United Kingdom’s highest grossing industries.

Last year, the UK grossed £4.8 billion of investment in the Film and TV industry, marking it as one of the leading nations in film production. The investment into Film and TV, working alongside the BBC, aims to maintain the attractiveness of the UK for further inward investment, with the government’s commitment to this cause hoping to result in the preservation of the public media as well as the UK’s status as an internationally recognised hub of media production.

Similarly, the UK music industry is the third largest in the world, constituting £7.6 billion in revenue in 2024 (with £1.49 billion of this resulting from UK recorded music exports, this figure seeing a 4.8 per cent annual increase). The UK government pledges to identify and capitalise on home-grown British talent, and utilise the funding promised under the Creative Industries policy to aid the achievement of this goal in the music and performing arts industries.

Furthering on the policy outlined in the Digital and Technologies Sector Plan, the UK also aims to secure its status as the largest video games industry in Europe by catalysing the expansion of studios and the development of smaller UK-based game companies.

In 2024, the UK advertising market held a value of £32 billion, seeking to reach a value of £44 billion in 2028. The government aims to achieve this through the exploitation of modern technologies, such as Artificial Intelligence, allowing for the boosting of exports of advertising campaigns produced by UK-based firms.

3. Realising the potential of Creative Industries clusters

Creative Industries clusters across the UK are acknowledged to hold high potential for the creation of thousands of high-quality jobs, recognising the 709 microclusters and 55 major clusters that exist within the nation.

Not only does the Sector Plan recognise the importance of the Greater London supercluster (which constitutes for 34 per cent of creative businesses in the United Kingdom), but it also aims to capitalise off of the smaller clusters across England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, working with their governments to support the growth corridor. This policy aims to develop the clusters already aided by the 2018 Creative Clusters Programme, working in tandem with the UK’s governments to provide adequate funding to these areas and stimulate economic growth outside of Greater London.

4. Delivering joint commitments from government and industry, working in partnership

The UK government aims to develop a more positive relationship with all businesses and employers alongside the relaunched Creative Industries Council, with an intention to achieve shared goals regarding diversity and inclusion, equality in the industries, and response to security and global concerns.

Summary

The intentions of the government with the ten year Creative Industries Sector Plan are clear: to stimulate economic growth, increase employment in the industries, and re-establish clear connections with leaders in the industry in order to achieve their goals more effectively.

However, the Sector Plan still fails to acknowledge widespread issues within the industries, such as the use of generative AI and its impact on freelance artists and graphic designers. The encouragement of the use of AI outlined in the Digital and Technologies Sector Plan, therefore, limits the amount of positive long-term impact which the Sector Plan can offer in terms of supporting the development and protection of Intellectual Property for artists.

The Plan, if successful, will undeniably support the Creative Industries, particularly in delivering joint commitments and developing microclusters, as well as offering financial support to creative workers of all levels and as a result, boosting the growth of the UK’s creative economy.

As part of the broader Industrial Strategy portfolio, the sector strategy focuses on the UK’s ambition to become one of the world’s top three leading locations for digital growth and technological development.

D&T Sector Strategy: Goals and economic significance

The Digital and Technologies Sector Strategy revolves around the strategic goal for the UK to become the third-largest destination for tech investment globally after the US and China by 2035, effectively transforming Britain into a digital superpower.

Currently, the British digital and tech sector contribute approximately £207 billion in gross value added (GVA) to the economy, whilst supporting over 2.6 million jobs, and maintaining productivity levels 19 per cent higher than the national average.

As a result of the D&TSP, sector GVA contributions are forecast to increase by £90 billion, creating 500,000 jobs by 2035, to enhance regional development and international competitiveness.

The six policy pillars of the sector strategy

The sector strategy is structured around six key areas of intervention: Research and development, access to finance, skills and workforce, infrastructure, regulation, and international engagement.

1. Public research and development investment

Public R&D investment is primed to increase to £22.6 billion annually by 2029/30. In addition, the government aims to leverage £3 of private investment for every £1 of public funding, although the means by which this will be achieved haven’t been explicitly revealed.

Agencies such as UKRI and ARIA are expected to play central roles in funding early-stage and breakthrough technologies, with ARIA, the Advanced Research and Invention Agency, leading projects in fields such as AI computers and hardware.

2. Finance and investment access

The British Business Bank will expand its support for tech-focused companies, increasing overall investment capacity to £25.6 billion.

A new £4 billion Industrial Strategy Growth Capital fund will be launched, aiming to generate an additional £12 billion of private investment.

Pension market reforms and targeted co-investment initiatives are hoped to provide longer-term capital to emerging tech companies.

3. Skills and workforce development

A new national programme, TechFirst, will be introduced with £187 million in funding, focusing around bursaries, outreach, apprenticeships, and fellowships to develop a skilled workforce in AI, data science, and other high-growth areas.

Additionally, visa pathways for international talent will be expanded, including the Global Talent and High Potential Individual visas.

4. Infrastructure expansion

In regards to infrastructure expansion, the D&TSP also pledges £1 billion in investment to exponentially expand AI computer capacites.

Culham in Oxfordshire will serve as the UK’s first AI Growth Zone, whilst planning reforms and a Connections Accelerator Service have been announced to facilitate faster development of essential infrastructure, including data centres and gigabit broadband networks.

5. Regulatory innovation

A new Regulatory Innovation Office will be launched to coordinate pro-innovation regulatory approaches. The government will expand regulatory sandboxes to support AI, engineering biology, and digital markets. A digital standards strategy will also be developed to facilitate safe data interoperability.

6. Global partnerships and strategic cooperation

International engagement includes renewed participation in Horizon Europe, strategic alignment through AUKUS, and technology-focused trade partnerships with countries such as Japan and Singapore.

The Ministry of Defence has committed to allocating 10 per cent of its equipment budget to advanced technologies, including dual-use systems.

Priority technologies

In addition, the plan identifies six frontier technologies for focused investment:

1. Artificial intelligence: AI Growth Zones, data access reform, and large-scale computer infrastructure.
2. Advanced connectivity: 6G, satellite communications, and secure networks.
3. Cyber security: Focus on post-quantum cryptography and national cyber defence.
4. Engineering biology: Development of bio-manufacturing infrastructure and regulatory frameworks.
5. Quantum technologies: Support for commercialisation in sectors such as healthcare and finance.
6. Semiconductors: Strengthening of domestic R&D, supply chain resilience, and IP protection.

Final thought

Whilst the sector strategy certainly does articulate clear targets and investment plans, delivery remains contingent on effective implementation. Arguably, the D&TS Plan lacks enhanced regional funding mechanisms, stronger educational pipelines in secondary and further education and clearer ethical guidelines for AI and biotechnology use.

Overall, however, the government has committed to working with devolved administrations, industry stakeholders, and international partners to ensure that the sector strategy delivers long-term economic, technological, and societal benefits.

With an emphasis on boosting key public services and long-term economic growth, the spending review sets out the government’s departmental budgets from 2026 to 2029.

The final package followed intense, last-minute negotiations with senior ministers: Deputy Prime Minister and Housing Secretary Angela Rayner pushed for increased funding for social housing, while Home Secretary Yvette Cooper tried to secure additional resources for policing.

The Chancellor framed the spending review around the “priorities of working people” – with big investments in defence, education, health and local government.

Departmental spending will rise by an average of 2.3 per cent a year in real terms over the period, adding £190 billion in day-to-day public service funding compared to previous plans.

This marks a notable shift from the austerity budgets of the 2010s, with most areas of government now seeing at least some real-terms increase in funding. 

However, Reeves’ upbeat messaging came with an acknowledgment of trade-offs: The biggest boosts are concentrated in a few priority sectors, meaning other departments will face tighter settlements or even cuts despite the overall spending growth.

Biggest winners in the Spending Review

Under Reeves’ plan, health and defence stand out as two of the biggest winners with significant funding increases. Departments with above-average settlements include Defence, slated for a 3.6 per cent annual real-terms increase, and the National Health Service (NHS), which receives roughly 2.8 per cent annual real growth in its budget. These uplifts significantly outpace the 1.5 per cent overall growth rate projected for later years of the review period. 

Nearly 40 per cent of all day-to-day government spending will go to the health service alone by the end of the period – underlining the NHS’s protected status even amid tight finances.

Beyond health and defence, a few other areas also see real-terms boosts. Local government is one: After years of strain on council budgets, Reeves aims to ease local pressures through an extra £3.4 billion by 2028-29 for local authorities, equating to around 3.1 per cent annual growth in real-terms in core council funding over the review period. 

The justice system is another relative winner – the Ministry of Justice secures funds to expand prison capacity and probation services, contributing to a 1.8 per centyearly real increase for justice spending. Policing resources will rise by roughly 2.3 per cent per year, in line with the average, supporting frontline officer numbers. 

This includes £7 billion over five years to build 14,000 new prison places and up to £700 million extra per year by 2028-29 to reform probation services. These investments aim to expand capacity in overcrowded prisons and implement recommendations from a recent sentencing review, modernizing how offenders are managed. 

Crucially, capital investment was a focal point of the spending review. The Chancellor stressed the need to “build for the future” as part of her economic renewal agenda.

Major infrastructure and innovation programs were among the headline commitments: £39 billion was earmarked for a 10-year programme to build affordable homes – almost doubling annual housing investment.

Similarly, record funding for research and development (R&D) – £86 billion over four years – was confirmed to spur innovation and underpin Britain’s growth mission.

Big-ticket projects in clean energy and transport were highlighted too, such as a new £14 billion nuclear power station and over £16 billion for regional public transport upgrades.

Defence and Security

In light of the ongoing war in Ukraine and growing uncertainty over the future of the transatlantic alliance – particularly following U.S. President Donald Trump’s renewed warnings against automatic defence of NATO allies, the UK has increasingly positioned itself as a key pillar of European security.

Aligned with this mission, defence spending is set to climb significantly, reflecting evolving global threats and a political resolve to strengthen the UK’s armed forces.

Reeves confirmed that defence expenditure will rise to 2.6 per cent of GDP by 2027, with an ambition to reach 3 per cent of GDP in the longer term “when economic and fiscal conditions allow”.

Concrete commitments include bolstering both hard power and intelligence capabilities. The Strategic Defence Review, published alongside the Spending Review, outlined plans to modernise forces and equipment.

To support this, the budget for Britain’s intelligence agencies will rise by £600 million in real terms over the period, ensuring MI5, MI6, and GCHQ can stay “at the cutting edge of technology” in countering hostile state and cyber threats. Reeves also highlighted the importance of domestic security.

In response to the ongoing issue of small boat crossings in the English Channel, the Spending Review allocates up to £280 million extra by 2028-29 for a new Border Security Command within the Home Office. This funding will target the criminal gangs behind people smuggling, as part of a broader effort to “reduce irregular migration and the flow of illicit commodities” into the UK.

Another pillar of the security theme is energy security, treated as a strategic priority in light of recent volatility in global energy markets.

Reeves announced the government is “ending decades of delay” on critical energy projects by giving the green light to the Sizewell C nuclear power station, support for a new Small Modular Reactor, and funding for carbon capture, usage and storage (CCUS) initiatives.

These long-term investments, while categorized under energy and climate policy, also serve national security aims by reducing reliance on imported fossil fuels. 

Defence industry leaders have broadly welcomed the increased spending, noting it provides more certainty for long-term projects.

However, fiscal analysts caution that ambitions could outstrip resources. The Oxford Economics chief UK economist, Andrew Goodwin, pointed out that meeting NATO’s expected higher defence spending targets could require even more funding – and Reeves gave “no guidance on how…plans would adapt” if NATO raises the bar.

Health and Social Care

The Health sector – particularly the NHS – is the single largest beneficiary of the 2025 Spending Review in absolute terms.

With the health service being a central point of voter priorities, Reeves pledged to cut record waiting lists and times, and “invest in Britain’s health” and tackle record waiting lists. 

Annual NHS England spending will increase by £29 billion in real terms from 2023–24 to 2028–29, reaching a total of £226 billion by 2028–29.

This represents roughly three per cent average real growth each year for the NHS, and marks one of the most generous settlements the health service has seen in modern spending reviews.

By comparison, the NHS budget will now account for nearly 40 per cent of day-to-day government departmental spending – illustrating its primacy in the national finances.

What will this money be used for?

The aim is that by the end of this Parliament, 92 per cent of patients will start treatment within 18 weeks of referral for non-urgent conditions. Reeves also underscored mental health and primary care as areas receiving targeted support, though specifics were left to the Department of Health and Social Care to allocate.

On top of day-to-day spending, the review delivers a significant jolt of capital investment in health. The NHS capital budget will see a £2.3 billion real-terms increase (about £4 billion more in cash) by 2029-30.

This is projected to be the largest health capital budget ever, amounting to over a 20 per cent real-terms rise. This will cover building new hospitals, upgrading old facilities, improving A&E departments, and adopting new medical technologies and digital systems.

In theory, this capital injection should help modernise the NHS estate (some of which dates to the mid-20th century) and improve productivity – for instance, by replacing outdated equipment with faster, more efficient models.

Despite these headline figures, many health experts warn that the NHS funding boost, may only stabilize the system rather than transform it.

The British Medical Association (BMA) reacted to the Spending Review by cautioning that the NHS budget increase still “falls short of the investment needed to fulfil the NHS workforce plan” and other long-term needs.

Dr. Latifa Patel of the BMA noted that with an ageing population and existing care backlogs, it is “simply not good enough for healthcare spending to keep systems treading water”.

The government’s own projections reportedly suggest that even with this funding, meeting the 18-week treatment target by 2029 could be challenging. A major concern is the workforce: Resolving NHS staff shortages and pay disputes will “need funding” beyond what has been outlined, the BMA argues.

Local Government and Social Housing

Local councils in England will see their core spending power rise by just over 3 per cent per year in real terms. This includes funding to support vital services like social care, libraries, and bin collections, as well as money to help struggling councils balance their budgets. 

Despite the uplift, it comes on the back of more than a decade of austerity. Between 2010-11 and 2024-25, council core funding per person fell by around 18 per cent in real terms, with some estimates pointing to even sharper declines – up to 26–27 per cent in the most deprived areas.

These conditions forced councils to drastically reduce spending on culture, leisure, housing, transport, and planning – some sectors saw cuts of 35-43 per cent since 2010.

Several authorities have even issued Section 114 notices – effectively a declaration of financial crisis – most notably Birmingham City Council, which reported an £87 million deficit in September 2023 and cut services dramatically.

The devolved governments get a sizable boost too via the Barnett formula. The Welsh Government, for example, is set to receive an average of £22.4 billion per year – its largest funding settlement in real terms since devolution in 1999.

Part of this will enable long-sought investments for rail infrastructure which local leaders hailed as “hugely welcome” and long overdue.

Scotland and Northern Ireland likewise benefit from increased block grants, empowering them to invest in areas like transport, health, and education in line with their priorities.

Alongside this, the Spending Review unveiled what ministers described as the largest government-backed social housing investment in a generation.

A ten-year, £39 billion capital package aims to boost the supply of affordable and council housing across the UK. This will be channeled through a reformed Affordable Homes Programme and targeted funds for local authorities and housing associations.

The new funding is designed to address chronic shortages that have left over one million households on waiting lists and driven rising homelessness in many urban areas.

Local authorities will also benefit from a £950 million Local Authority Housing Fund aimed at improving temporary accommodation and reducing the costly reliance on emergency B&B placements.

Education and Skills

Education saw a more mixed outcome in the Spending Review – receiving a modest uplift for schools and skills, but with concerns that funding may not go far enough.

The Chancellor announced that the core schools budget will grow by £2 billion in real terms over the spending review period. In cash terms, that’s a £4.7 billion increase by 2028-29 (compared to 2025-26 levels), which translates to roughly 1.1 per cent average real-terms growth per pupil each year.

This money is intended to cover rising costs and deliver previously agreed teacher pay raises. Importantly, Reeves reaffirmed the government’s commitment to improving school infrastructure: about £2.4 billion per year is allocated to the School Rebuilding Programme, underpinning a pledge to rebuild or refurbish over 500 schools across England.

Investments in skills and further education were also highlighted. The spending review sets aside funding to ensure 1.3 million 16–19 year-olds can access high-quality training opportunities in coming years.

There is a £2 billion real-terms boost to skills spending, which government sources say will expand apprenticeship programs and technical education pathways. These measures align with the broader aim of boosting productivity and helping “every region and community” benefit from growth, by equipping young people with practical skills. 

However, not all parts of the education sector benefited equally. In a move framed as a reprioritisation, the government confirmed it will no longer fund level seven apprenticeships for people aged 22 and older, aiming instead to focus resources on lower level programmes that cater to school leavers and early-career workers.

While officials argue this will increase access and equity, critics warn it may undermine efforts to upskill the workforce at more advanced levels.

Meanwhile, the Turing Scheme – the UK’s post-Brexit replacement for Erasmus+ saw a real-terms reduction in funding. While its continuation was confirmed, education leaders have voiced concern that the cut could limit the number of students able to access international study and work placements, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Who are the “losers” of the Spending Review?

Despite the substantial numbers on paper, not everyone gained from the 2025 spending review. Other departments saw more modest increases or even cuts in funding, with their budgets reallocated to more popular issues. 

The Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) will see its budget reduced by around five per cent per year. This largely follows the government’s earlier decision to stick to spending 0.5 per cent of Gross National Income on overseas aid (down from the previous 0.7 per cent commitment), meaning foreign aid budgets are being squeezed.

Additionally, the Home Office non-policing functions face a 4.5 per cent annual cut, implying less funding for areas like immigration and asylum processing, border management (apart from the specific security initiative), and administrative operations. 

The Treasury hopes to offset some of this by implementing a “cheaper system” for handling asylum seekers’ claims – potentially through reforms to accelerate processing or use more basic accommodation facilities, though those plans are controversial.

Agriculture and environment departments may also have to tighten belts in the latter part of the period, as implied by overall limits, though exact figures were not spotlighted in the Chancellor’s speech.

It is also worth noting that all government departments have been told to find at least 5 per cent in efficiency savings, and administrative costs by at least 16 per cent. 

While Reeves trumpeted this as “ruthlessly bearing down on waste” to focus funds on front-line priorities, some observers are skeptical. The IFS’s Paul Johnson warns that many departments might “find it hard to stick to the targets” for efficiency after so much past trimming..

The Institute for Government lauded the publication of detailed efficiency plans for the first time (a transparency move by the new Office for Value for Money), but noted that many planned savings rely on initiatives already in progress rather than entirely new reforms.

Reaction and Opposition

The reaction to Rachel Reeves’ 2025 Spending Review has been mixed, with opposition benches being unsurprisingly critical. The Conservative Party argued that Reeves’ spending plans are overly optimistic and potentially unsustainable. Mel Stride, the Conservatives’ finance policy chief, warned that the numbers simply might not add up without further tax increases. 

“She will have to come back here in the autumn with yet more taxes, and a cruel summer of speculation awaits,” Stride told MPs.

In context, the Labour government, elected on a promise to end austerity and “rebuild Britain,” is under pressure as it faces mid-term unpopularity and the rise of Reform UK in polls. Reeves’ sunny talk of “renewal” and visible investments in communities can be seen as an attempt to shore up support.

The Opposition, however, remains unconvinced. They point to Labour’s slipping poll numbers and recent U-turns as evidence that the government’s economic strategy is faltering. 

Featured image via Martin Suker / Shutterstock.

The Turing Scheme, the post-Brexit replacement for the EU-run Erasmus+ programme, will receive a 29 per cent budget cut for 2025/26. The budget will be £78 million, down from £110 million the previous academic year.

Many universities, colleges and schools rely on the scheme to fund overseas educational and vocational placements.

Scottish institutions have also received a smaller share of Turing Scheme funding each year, with approximately £6.9 million of funding coming their way in 2024/25, down from £8.9 million in 2023/24 and £9 million in 2022/23.

Scottish Government Education Minister Graeme Day said the move would “cause significant concern” and questioned “what it says about the commitment to return to Erasmus+”.

George Adam MSP, who sits on the Scottish Parliament’s Education, Children and Young People Committee said: “This is just another example of Labour letting down our young people. They promised change and a new direction, but it’s clear the only direction Labour is going is backwards.

“Starmer is slashing opportunities for Scottish students and heaping further financial costs on our world-class universities.

“The SNP want our young people to have the same opportunities they had before Brexit. We know how important student exchanges can be for a young person’s confidence, in building lifelong friendships and important life skills. That’s why we have been calling for a return to Erasmus+.

“It’s clear that only an independent Scotland will take us back into the EU and only the SNP will stand up to Labour’s devastating cuts.”

This comes as many Scottish higher and further education institutions face mounting financial pressure due to factors such as a drop-off in international student numbers, and increases in employer National Insurance payments.

Universities such as Edinburgh, Dundee and Robert Gordon in Aberdeen have had to make job cuts while salaries for executive staff have been increased, resulting in industrial action.

Further education institutions are also coming under financial pressure. Fife College is currently reviewing its offerings following a £1.3 million cut due to changes to the Scottish funding model for further education.

The Labour Government has committed to rejoining Erasmus+ as part of the new deal with the EU. However this is only one area that will be covered in the coming months and years of negotiations.

There have so far been few signs of progress on the rejoining of Erasmus+, with some signs that an agreement may not be reached until 2028 when the EU’s next 7 year budget is set out.

The UK Government’s approach to education has also involved investment to encourage young people into key industries such as AI, with a recent announcement of funding for MSc scholarships in the sector.

Featured image via Monkey Business Images / Shutterstock.

But increasingly, we are also constantly fighting the symptoms of depopulation.  

Growing up here, I saw first-hand the struggle of young people and families to stay in the communities they love. Friends left for opportunities elsewhere, not because they wanted to, but because they felt that’s what they had to do – often spurred on by parents who repeated the myth that there are no opportunities here. 

As the former minister responsible for population issues, I know it’s a complex issue. But for me, knowing that there are endless exciting opportunities for young people in the Highlands and Islands, and believing it is fundamentally a great place to live, I always return to the same question: Are we building homes for people, or merely for profit?

Speculators and portfolio landlords drive up prices in places they know tourists will come, and very quickly, people who “just” want to live in the community can’t afford to. 

Once school rolls dwindle to mothballing levels, restaurants cut opening times during off-season, and public services start to cut back in the area in response to low use, the fight to restore a community becomes far more difficult.  

This isn’t some abstract demographic trend; it’s a lived reality that impacts every aspect of the places it is affecting.

Take for example, a small village on the Isle of Skye, where a young family, both working in good jobs that locals needed done, found themselves priced out of buying or renting even a modest home.  

Every available property seemed to be either a second home sitting empty for much of the year, or a short-term holiday let commanding astronomical rates.  

When one did come on the market, it disappeared the same day, purchased sight-unseen by someone who knew they could rake in cash for it over the summer. 

How can we expect our nurses, our teachers, our farmers, and our volunteers to stay and contribute to our communities if there’s simply nowhere for them to live?

This isn’t to say that tourism isn’t useful to our local economy – it absolutely is.  Many people rely on it.  But we have reached a point where the balance is dangerously skewed.  

We have seen communities like Ullapool, where average house prices have soared – partly due to the proliferation of short-term lets – suffer from a lack of cleaners and other workers.  

This isn’t just about affordability; it’s about the very fabric of our society.  A holiday let, no matter how charmingly it might be presented, doesn’t send its children to the local school, volunteer for the RNLI, or serve on the community council.  

Homes must primarily be for people who contribute to the daily life and sustainability of our communities.

This challenge isn’t confined to our rural areas.  Even in the fast-growing capital of the Highlands, Inverness, the housing crisis is acute.  

Despite exciting developments in industries like whisky, renewables, and exciting research, the sheer pace of urban sprawl is barely keeping up with demand, and often, the homes being built are simply out of reach for many.  

Young people in particular are finding themselves priced out, forced to choose between leaving the region or enduring frustrating and lengthy commutes from more affordable areas.  

We’re seeing a paradox where a city attracting significant investment in renewables and green industries struggles to house the very workforce it needs to fulfil its promises.  

The Inverness and Cromarty Firth Green Freeport, for instance, is projected to bring thousands of new jobs, yet the Highland Council estimates over 24,000 new homes are needed in the next decade to meet demand – double the usual build rate.  

If we don’t address this, the very opportunities we’re creating risk being undermined by a lack of fundamental infrastructure: Homes.

The solution will always start with housing.  We need to see houses primarily as homes for people who work, volunteer, and raise their families here.  

This means a relentless focus on increasing the supply of genuinely affordable housing across the Highlands and Islands.

We’re seeing positive steps, with initiatives like the Rural and Islands Housing Fund.  I was particularly encouraged to see the recent completion of new family homes in Aviemore, specifically allocated for local key workers at a mid-market rent, supported by the Highland Housing Alliance and with Scottish Government funding.  This is exactly the kind of targeted action that’s needed to tackle the local housing crisis.

We must go further. We need to empower our local authorities and community land trusts – like the fantastic work being done by the Communities Housing Trust, visible across the region – to acquire land and develop housing that is truly for local people.  

We must explore all avenues, from supporting self-builders to bringing empty homes back into use, and –critically – effectively regulating the short-term let market.  

The Scottish Government’s work on licensing short-term lets is a crucial step, but we must remain vigilant to ensure it has the desired impact and is reactive to any loopholes that emerge. 

And community leaders need to take charge in identifying where stronger, localised planning controls are necessary to stem the fast flow of housing towards holiday letting.

Depopulation is not an insurmountable challenge, but it requires us to prioritise our people, communities, and future.

 By ensuring that homes in the Highlands and Islands are first and foremost for those who call them home, we can reverse this trend and ensure our communities and out culture thrive for generations to come.  

It’s time to put people before profit, and truly build homes for the future of our region.

Featured image via Natalie Hora / Shutterstock.

Rt Hon Andrew Stephenson CBE

Curia Advisory Board Member

Former Local Government Minister

The public wants more homes. That much is clear. But they don’t believe the Government can – or will – actually deliver them.

New polling from Opinium commissioned by policy institute, Curia presents a sobering message for ministers and opposition leaders alike: While the majority of people agree Britain needs more housing, faith in political promises to deliver that housing is in dangerously short supply.

Only 17 per cent of the public believe Labour will meet its house building pledge. Among the very voters most likely to support new development – so-called “YIMBYs” – more than two-thirds still doubt the party can deliver. The Conservatives fare even worse, and the Liberal Democrats barely register.

In an age of political distrust, it is not enough to be right on policy. You have to convince people you can follow through.

That’s Labour’s credibility challenge – and the Government’s delivery crisis.

The polling underscores a central contradiction that has haunted successive governments on housing policy for decades: While national support for new homes sits at a healthy net +37 per cent, that plummets to just +7 per cent when it comes to people’s own local areas. It’s not that people are inherently anti-housing.

It’s that they’ve seen promises made without infrastructure delivered. They’ve seen beauty and place sacrificed for volume and speed. And they’ve stopped believing that the system will act in their interests.

This isn’t just about “NIMBYs” vs “YIMBYs”. The data reveals a public torn between a national sense of urgency and a local sense of risk. Forty-five percent favour protecting local character by restricting development, while 37 per cent want more housing to address shortages and prices.

Few are fully convinced by either camp. Meanwhile, more than twice as many people think the planning system is failing than performing well.

So how can the Government – any government – bridge this divide?

The answer lies in rebuilding trust through tangible, place-based delivery. Nearly half the public say they would support more housing if homes were of high quality and in keeping with local character.

A similar proportion want infrastructure – transport, schools, services – to come first. Prioritising brownfield development remains a key trust signal.

There’s another insight buried in the data that policymakers must heed: People support infrastructure far more than housing. Net support for local infrastructure development sits at +42 per cent, compared to just +7 per cent for housing. Wastewater plants, rail links, and broadband projects all receive strong backing.

The public’s message is clear: Lay the groundwork before you lay the bricks.

Yet the Government’s narrative on innovation and reform still isn’t landing. Just 21 per cent think AI growth zones will benefit their area – and one-third of respondents admit they don’t even know what they are. That matters. When it comes to delivering housing and infrastructure, framing and familiarity are as important as policy detail.

Even widely assumed grievances – such as hostility to environmental protections – are being overstated. Only 14 per cent think current regulations are too restrictive. Many more believe they are too weak or about right. Even dormice win majority support for protection.

Final Thought

In short, this is not a public waiting to be persuaded with flashy announcements or combative rhetoric about planning reform. It is a public that is asking – politely but firmly – for competent, thoughtful, community-aligned delivery.

Labour now has a rare electoral window in which to act boldly on housing. But it must bring people with it – not just through national messaging, but through local trust-building and visible progress. The polling gives the blueprint. The question now is whether the political class has the courage, discipline, and humility to follow it.

Because the public doesn’t just want homes. They want to believe in the people building them.

Read the full Curia and Opinium report here.

Featured image via Lichtwolke / Shutterstock.

Despite widespread support for house building, with 54 per cent of all UK adults supporting more construction, Rt Hon Andrew Stephenson argues that “it is not enough to be right on policy. You have to convince people you can follow through”.

The polling coincides with the upcoming debates in the House of Commons on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, planned for June 9 and June 10.

The report outlines a number of strategies the government could undertake to increase trust in their housing policy, including ensuring that new builds are high quality and in keeping with local character and showing tangible development through transforming vacant brownfield sites.

The report, which polled a nationally representative sample of 2,050 UK adults, also found significant divergences in trust and support between NIMBYs and YIMBYs.

It defined NIMBYs as UK adults who support limiting new building projects in order to preserve the character of local areas, and YIMBYs as those who support increased construction to address housing shortages and rising property prices.

Using these definitions 45 per cent of adults were classed as NIMBYs and 37 per cent as YIMBYs.

While 17 per cent of all UK adults believed that Labour would hit its target of 1.5 million new homes, this rose to 25 per cent of YIMBYs and fell to 13 per cent of NIMBYs.

Support for house building also differed, with 79 per cent of YIMBYs supporting new house building, almost double NIMBY support of 39 per cent and the UK average of 54 per cent.

They also cited different ways in which the government could increase support for house building, with NIMBYs supporting the use of brownfield land in order to protect green spaces as the strategy they would support the most (57 per cent), and thinking that prioritising affordable housing for low income households is less important (36 per cent) than the average UK adult (42 per cent) or YIMBYs (56 per cent)

In contrast, YIMBYs prioritise high-quality, attractive homes that fit local character (56 per cent) and affordable housing (56 per cent) while supporting brownfield development (47 per cent) and infrastructure (44 per cent) slightly less than NIMBYs (57 per cent and 53 per cent) and the UK average (47 per cent and 44 per cent).

Support for infrastructure development significantly outperformed support for housing (48 per cent compared to 37 per cent), while 44 per cent of adults said that building infrastructure before adding housing would increase public trust and support in Labour’s construction plans.

This suggests a shift from housing to public infrastructure projects could also be more beneficial, building trust in the government’s wider construction plans, with Stephenson saying the government should “lay the groundwork before you lay the bricks”.

The contrast between infrastructure and housing support is particularly apparent in local areas, where house building was only supported by 7 per cent of people if it took place in their local area, compared to 42 per cent support for local infrastructure investment

Support is particularly strong for projects like wastewater plants (53 per cent), rail infrastructure (49 per cent), wind farms (49 per cent), and digital infrastructure (46 per cent).

Despite high support for digital infrastructure, AI projects appear to suffer from a lack of clear understanding, with 32 per cent of people saying they don’t understand what the government’s new AI growth zones are meant to be, and only 21 per cent believing they will benefit their local areas.

Stephenson explains that the public “don’t want sweeping rhetoric about growth zones or deregulation – they want to see real infrastructure, better quality homes, and trust restored at a local level.”

Another roadblock for the government’s plans is its approach to environmental regulation, with 30 per cent of UK adults believing protections do not go far enough and allow “too many things to be built which have a damaging environmental impact”, compared to 14 per cent who believe they are too restrictive, and 28 per cent who believe it is “about right”.

Support for environmental protections also increase for certain species like ancient trees (84 per cent), wild birds (82 per cent) and butterflies and otters (78 per cent).

As a response to the findings, Curia’s Housing and Infrastructure Research Group, which commissioned the polling and co-designed the research with Opinium, is calling for policy to focus on place-based delivery, brownfield-first development, and early infrastructure investment to rebuild confidence in planning and development.

“Labour has successfully positioned itself as the party of house building”, said James Crouch, Head of Policy and Public Affairs at Opinium, “but that won’t shield the government from voter backlash if it fails to meet its own housing targets.”

Find the full Curia and Opinium report here.

Featured image via Simon Dawson / No 10.

Author: Jamie Calder.

Together with Fiona Hill, a British-born former national security profession in the US Government and advisor during the first Trump Administration, Lord Robertson has completed this thankless task with the announcement of the Strategic Defence Review’s findings today. 

While the name “Strategic Defence Review”  implies high level strategic decisions and a clarifying of UK objectives in such a way that will shape the world moving forward, more often it is a reactive document setting out how the UK will fill the gaps exposed by the latest challenge presented by world events. 

It’s a balancing act where the authors must prioritise threats such as Russia, China and terrorism, while the various sections of the armed forced: The Army, Navy and Air Force, all vie for funding and politics as politicians lobby for the industry and infrastructure in their areas. 

Unlike past Strategic Defence Reviews this one deals with the challenges presented not only by enemies and rivals but allies as well. The Trump administration has upended the worldview that has underpinned the UK’s long-term foreign policy, placing further importance on the UKs short-term defence planning as it can no longer rely upon American support.

Past Reviews

Key to understanding how a Strategic Defence Review (SDR) will be judged will be the challenges Britain faces in the years following it’s being published. 

2021 Integrated Review: Delayed by Covid, this review focussed on building up the navy and cooperation with the United States, particularly in the indo-pacific region. While the Strategic Defence Review identified Russia as an “acute threat”, it’s investment seemed tilted towards China’s “systemic challenge”.

It failed to anticipate the shell shortages, long range fire requirements and drone warfare of the brewing war in Ukraine and continued the UK’s long-term integration into US foreign policy despite the looming threat of a second Trump administration. 

2015 Strategic Defence and Security Review: The last terrorism focused review was torn between the potential threat from ISIS and resurgent aggression from Russia. With UK forces still engaged in Afghanistan there was a focus on special forces and maintaining the size of the army and upgrading attack helicopters crucial when fighting an insurgency while holding air dominance.

The evacuation of Afghanistan and the failure to maintain the size of the army, which has shrunk by over 12,000 since 2015, and dipped below the 82,000 target in the same Parliament, meant this SDR did not age well. A renewed focus on the navy however has been carried forward since. 

2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review: This review was perhaps the most honest and inward facing review of recent times. Focussed on cost cutting, the 2010 Strategic Defence Review cut short-term capability in search of savings in the hope that brighter fiscal weather would allow for their restoration in the future.

While the fiscal headwinds have not let up, capability, in particular the commissioning of the second Queen Elizabeth-Class carrier into service reversed one of the major decisions of this SDR. 

Today’s Announcements

• Warfighting Readiness: The UK Armed Forces are to shift towards a state of “warfighting readiness” to deter potential conflicts in Europe and the Atlantic, particularly in response to threats from Russia.
• Nuclear Submarine Programme: Plans to build up to 12 nuclear-powered attack submarines under the AUKUS partnership with the US and Australia, replacing the current Astute-class fleet from the late 2030’s.
• Nuclear Weapons Investment: An additional £15 billion will be invested in modernising the UK’s nuclear weapons production at Aldermaston, supporting over 9,000 jobs.
• Defence Spending Increase: Defence spending is set to rise to 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2027, with an ambition to reach 3 per cent in the next Parliament.
• Munitions Production: £1.5 billion allocated to build at least six new munitions and energetics factories, aiming to produce up to 7,000 long-range weapons and create approximately 1,800 jobs.
• Home Guard Revival: Proposal to establish a volunteer-led Home Guard to protect critical national infrastructure, allowing regular forces to focus on other duties.
• New Cyber and Electromagnetic Command: Introduction of the Digital Targeting Web by 2027. Taking lessons from the Ukraine war, this system will allow forces to more quickly deliver targeting information. 

Final Thought

Unsurprisingly, the war in Ukraine has overshadowed today’s announcements, with munitions manufacture and a new Cyber and Electromagnetic Command coming directly from lessons learned, but rising defence budgets have also allowed for continued investment in the navy.

Nuclear powered attack submarines built under the AUKUS agreement with Australia and the United States signal a focus on the Atlantic, but could still be relevant to any stand-off in the Pacific. 

The dog that hasn’t barked is any sort of distancing in the partnership with the United States. One might have expected that with Trump’s wafer thin commitment to Ukraine, bellicose attitude on Greenland and blowing hot and cold on NATO that the UK would start pragmatically replacing the United States in our supply chain and investing in replacements for alliance capabilities currently handled by the United States.

There is precious little sign of change in this area with the US still planning to supply the UK’s nuclear deterrent and according to reports in the Sunday Times, considering an additional purchase of 5th generation fighters to deliver air-launched nuclear weapons. 

It’s clear that the government is hoping the MAGA storm will blow over and things can return to normal. History will judge this SDR on whether that hope is realised.