Credit: Adobe

Britain’s railways are changing more rapidly than at any point in a generation. The creation of Great British Railways (GBR) moves the operation of trains from private train operating companies into the hands of the state as franchises expire.

Earlier this year, we saw the first GBR rolling stock down in Brighton. But behind the red white and blue paint, the operation of trains is changing too, with increasing digitisation of passenger information systems and operational technology.

A modern rail system is a good thing – but it brings new cyber challenges. Around the world, cyberattacks on rail infrastructure have caused serious disruption, such as in Germany, Israel and Denmark. In the UK, we need to guard against weaknesses as we transition to GBR, with over 1.7bn passenger journeys a year. Suddenly, the risk is owned by government, not private companies.

Analysis commissioned by the Department for Science Innovation and Technology found a hypothetical systemic cyber incident on the rail network could result in a total economic cost of approximately £1.8 billion for a week’s period of disruption. Meanwhile, the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) continues to report a sharp rise in serious cyber incidents affecting the UK’s essential services and wider economy, underlining a growing risk to critical national infrastructure like rail.

As the network becomes more digital, keeping trains moving safely and reliably increasingly depends on the resilience of the cyber systems that protect them. The transition to GBR presents a series of new challenges from procurement to skills and it is vital that GBR equips itself to be fit for the future. In Fortinet’s recent report on this subject, four key recommendations emerged.

The first is to establish a national cybersecurity incident reporting and learning system for the rail industry. Too often, organisations learn only from incidents that happen within their own network. Yet cyber threats rarely respect organisational boundaries. The NHS’s patient safety reporting framework is a model for how lessons from incidents and near misses can be captured centrally and shared quickly across an entire sector. The transition to GBR presents an opportunity to embed that culture of continuous learning from the outset, helping operators identify systemic vulnerabilities before they become major disruptions.

Second, cybersecurity must become an integral part of procurement rather than an afterthought. In Great Britain, passenger rolling stock typically has a service life of around 30–35 years, with some fleets already over 30 years old, meaning that contractual choices made now will shape the network’s cyber risk profile for a generation. Decisions taken today about rolling stock, signalling systems and operational technology will shape the railway for decades to come. If cybersecurity expertise is absent when those decisions are made, vulnerabilities can become locked into infrastructure with long asset lifecycles that are difficult and expensive to remedy later. Great British Railways offers the chance to make “secure by design” the default principle for procurement, ensuring resilience is built into every new system from the beginning rather than bolted on afterwards.

Third, the sector must address the growing cyber skills challenge. The National Skills Academy for Rail (NSAR) estimates that up to 75,000 workers could be lost to retirement or attrition by 2030, with acute shortages already emerging in areas such as digital signalling, data, and systems engineering. Yet the future railway depends on professionals who understand both operational rail systems and modern cyber risk. Those hybrid skills remain in short supply. A dedicated rail cyber skills taskforce could help coordinate training, attract new talent and ensure the workforce develops alongside the technologies it will be responsible for protecting.

Finally, we need stronger collaboration across critical national infrastructure. The convergence of information technology and operational technology means that cyber resilience can no longer be considered in isolation by individual organisations. Transport operators, infrastructure managers, technology suppliers and Government all have a role to play in identifying emerging threats and sharing best practice. Trusted cybersecurity partners should be a central part of that collaboration. Building on NCSC Information Exchanges, sector specific working groups for major transport modes (rail, aviation, maritime and road) should coordinate cyber risk assessment, set shared resilience standards, run joint exercises and report regularly to ministers on emerging threats and recommended actions. This should, in time, be extended to critical national infrastructure sectors such as energy and health.

The Cyber Security and Resilience Bill, being debated in Parliament today, is an important step forward in setting a modern and updated legal framework, but it is only the start. By pairing clear statutory duties with an industry-wide learning culture, secure-by-design procurement, a skills pipeline that reaches every region and an open door between Government and industry, we can turn GBR into a global benchmark for safe, digital transport.

Martin Rhodes, Member of Parliament for Glasgow North.

Chris Parker MBE, Director of Government Strategy at Fortinet.

Illustration by Tracy Worrall

21 min read29 min

Back in 2015, Andy Burnham was on his second attempt at winning the Labour leadership. Although ruthlessly mocked for overemphasising his outsider status as a Northerner, he was the frontrunner at first and Labour’s biggest donor, Unite, was ready to endorse him.

If you want our backing, the union said, you’ve got it – you just need to call us on Monday morning. But Burnham was reluctant to accept their funding. So, Monday came and went. Tuesday came and went, too. The “change candidate” released a statement to make clear he would refuse to be beholden to any one section of the movement. Unite turned to Jeremy Corbyn instead, and the course of history was forever changed.

On his third time trying, Burnham has no opponents – and he has not just stuck with his northern branding but put it at the centre of his forthcoming project as the sole Labour candidate to be our next prime minister.

The King of the North has not yet stepped over the threshold of 10 Downing Street, but already he is clear that fundamental to his government will be bringing power to – where else? – the North, made tangible with a second prime minister’s office in Manchester. “True to the motto of this city,” he declared there, in his first vision-setting speech as prime minister-in-waiting, “I am going to do things differently.”

While Burnham accepts the need to be in London when Parliament is sitting, his team say he wants to spend as little time as possible “closed off” behind that famous high-gloss black door. He hopes instead to show the country that decision-making does not only happen in Westminster – and he fully expects to be in the new ‘No 10 North’ at least one day a week.

The incoming prime minister has promised that this new office in Manchester will act as “the nerve-centre of a rewired Britain”. The plan is not to duplicate the work of London’s No 10 but to task No 10 North specifically with driving Burnham’s “devolution and growth agenda”.

Caroline Simpson, the Greater Manchester Combined Authority’s chief executive who is credited with helping him deliver fast growth in the region, will lead that work and be based there as his deputy chief of staff, while former Blairite minister James Purnell will run No 10 South.

Burnham would like to see No 10 North located at a government hub already under construction, the Manchester Digital Campus in Ancoats, but that is not due to be completed until 2032. Other sites in Greater Manchester fit the bill and interim arrangements are being made to get the new office up and running “as quickly as possible”, The House understands.

One Labour source says part of the thinking behind No 10 North is that, with lobby hacks based in Westminster, rooting part of the operation elsewhere could help limit leaks. Burnham’s team declines to address the claim specifically but stresses that unauthorised briefing and leaking is not an acceptable part of the culture – regardless of where staff might be based – and he is determined to stamp it out.

Some Labour MPs are freely criticising the No 10 North plan, of course. Hardcore Starmerites are particularly dismissive. “Yawn,” says one, who admits they are looking forward to life as a rebellious backbench MP under Burnham. “It sounds performative and seems like a gimmick.” Scottish MPs, meanwhile, like to point out that Burnham should try acknowledging “the real North”. (Plaid Cymru’s Rhun ap Iorwerth, First Minister of Wales, similarly said the proposal “means very little to the people of Wales”.)

Others are more welcoming. “Moving media to Manchester did make a difference for my constituents – the middle-class ones, anyway,” says a Labour MP with a northern seat, citing the BBC’s mass move to Salford as a positive example. “I’m interested to see how it would work in practice, but after years of the North being forgotten and left behind, I welcome anything that puts us firmly on the map and in the minds of No 10,” says another.

Many point out that it is at least evidence that Burnham has a story to tell the country about its future – something they argue Keir Starmer sorely lacked. There are concerns, however, about whether the move is purely symbolic. “What does it actually mean in practice? It will only be meaningful to my constituents if it leads to something real,” says a different northern backbencher.

“He will spend time out of London in a way that other prime ministers don’t, but this idea that it’s two days a week or whatever – it’s almost impossible to see how that will work”

Advertisement

Theo Bertram, director of the Social Market Foundation (SMF) think tank, reckons No 10 North’s symbolic value should not be understated. “That you could go and work in No 10, at the very top of government, without having to move to London, that is a positive symbol – even if that’s all it is,” he says. “The whole circus of Westminster will gear itself more to Manchester. To some degree, it already is.”

He adds: “What makes it not gimmicky is that this is pretty consistent with both his economic narrative and his political message, which are all about place.”

And while some have accused Burnham of unwisely moving a chunk of government to Manchester simply because that is where his family lives and is keen to stay, Bertram does not see this as a problem.

“We expect prime ministers to just up sticks, move their whole family – no matter what stage they’re at with their schooling – down to London and into this weird building that’s not really suitable to be a home, let alone the office of a head of state.

“Actually, if Andy Burnham can lead a more ‘normal life’ by still keeping some connection to where he feels at home, where his family might be able to stay, I think all of those things would be positive.”

Crucially, No 10 North – if done well – could allow the next prime minister to make clear his priorities in government and drive them through more effectively than he otherwise might have.

“If you go back to some of the things that Blair did with his policy unit,” explains Bertram, who advised both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown in No 10, “it was really clear that this wasn’t coming from a secretary of state – it was coming from the PM himself. The person who was working on it – say, Andrew Adonis, working on academy schools – what you knew is, this is the thing that the prime minister cares about and is driving.”

Whether No 10 North staff use email addresses ending in “no10.gov.uk” is one of those details that will be key to determining whether their work is taken seriously and prioritised, a Labour source argues.

Luke Sullivan, who was Starmer’s political director in opposition and previously worked as a spad to the chief whip towards the end of the New Labour government, makes a similar point.

“The most important words in Whitehall still are: ‘The prime minister wants’, or at least should be,” he says. He describes complaints frequently heard during the Starmer era about the obstructive nature of civil servants as “self-defeating” and “not reflective of what’s going on”.

“Where you’ve got really clear political leadership and ministerial direction,” Sullivan says, citing Ed Miliband in Desnz and Shabana Mahmood at the Home Office as examples, “those secretaries of state and those departments were seen to be delivering because they had clear guidance”.

Like Bertram, Sullivan thinks PMs being rooted in their seats is no bad thing. “Gordon and Tony spent significant chunks of time in their constituencies or in their constituency homes, and I think it made them better politicians for it,” he says.

“The geography is less important than the structures and clarity over people’s roles… I think that was probably one of those things under Keir where I’m not sure that was always clear – who had responsibility for what.”

Dave Penman, general secretary of the FDA trade union for civil servants, tells The House he appreciates the symbolic value of No 10 North and its contribution to Burnham’s vision, but raises concerns about the practicalities involved.

“Access to the prime minister – officials fight over it, politicians fight over it, because that’s really important to how you make government work. If you’re on a train or in the wrong location, or there’s some people there but not here, it’s just not going to work,” the union chief warns.

“Think of the amount of time you spend travelling, the demands on a prime minister, the need to be in the room with the prime minister… Him looking people in the eye is how things will actually happen.” Putting limits on this time “because that conversation is had with someone who’s supposed to be in Manchester when they’re in London, or London when they’re in Manchester”, he says, “will cause restrictions”.

“He will spend time out of London in a way that other prime ministers don’t, but this idea that it’s two days a week or whatever – it’s almost impossible to see how that will work, and it’s probably not what he means. I think he just means to demonstrate and show leadership.”

Penman is especially anxious about the impact on civil servants. “It’s a one-way ticket when you move out of London. It’s almost impossible to go back if you move permanently,” he explains, echoing a long-established principle based on the inaccessibility of the capital’s housing market.

“People have got to feel there’s a career for them – it’s not a one-move thing. There’s a potential for that around the M62 corridor, because you’ve got a lot of big conurbations… But it’s got to be thought through.”

He also flags that recruitment will need careful consideration: “If it’s 500 people [working in No 10 North], chances are there aren’t 500 people with the right experience already in and around Manchester.”

It has been suggested that Burnham could staff No 10 North with people already working in combined authorities around the country, who will be experienced in the relevant areas. “You can understand that’s an expertise you want,” says Penman reacting to the idea, but he asks: “Are they going to leave what they’re doing just now? Do they understand how you get government to work?”

Penman is keen not to be seen as too critical, saying: “You can get through all of this – it’s all doable.” But he cautions that Burnham must offer more clarity on the detail, adding: “He’s saying, ‘I want to do things differently.’ That doesn’t mean he’s worked any of that stuff out… You can’t just be on the vision stuff when you become prime minister. You’re a midterm prime minister as well – you’ve not got a lot of time here.”

Asked whether he is hopeful that Burnham will not talk negatively of the Civil Service, after Starmer declared in 2024 that “too many people in Whitehall are comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline”, Penman warns Burnham: “You can’t have a situation where Whitehall becomes a term of abuse, and I think that’s the danger for him.”

Burnham’s team will not comment on security concerns over the plan to have him working in No 10 North every week. While the train would offer the best optics, it is thought that taking it at such regular times would present a risk. “The prime minister can’t just get on the 3.05 from Euston,” as Penman puts it.

Bertram suggests they would use a variety of transport methods and points out, referencing Blair’s constituency journey, “You’d be surprised how fast you can get from Sedgefield to London if you’ve got a police convoy the whole way.” They tend to drive far over the speed limit, he explains, as that is a sure way of telling whether any other drivers around are hostile.

Then there is the question of whether, as some suggest, the devolution brief would have to be removed from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) where it currently lies, to avoid duplication of work. There is no clarity from Burnham’s camp so far on this point.

The relationship between No 10 North and MHCLG will need to be figured out. Hannah Keenan, associate director at the Institute for Government (IfG), says the two could work well together.

“What you have is a bit of the centre that’s holding you to account as a department, but also that’s helping you as MHCLG, who are right behind this devolution agenda, to bash heads around Whitehall: ‘Actually, no DWP, you do have to get on board with this thing that is happening over here, or we’re going to find a way to manage this bit of tension in that relationship,’” she says.

“It is fine and good for No 10 to be big enough to actually support the prime minister’s interest in his top priority, which sounds like it’s devolution,” Keenan adds, comparing this definition to the Starmer era’s ‘mission-led government’, which became less distinct over time. “The clarity of purpose that might have existed at the start of the Starmer premiership dissipated over the course of it,” she says.

In agreement with most of Westminster, Keenan believes “No 10 isn’t working” at present. The IfG strongly advocates reform.

“There are lots of different things you could do to try and get No 10 to work,” she says. “Taking out a bit of it, away from the incredibly fast hustle and daily disruption in Whitehall, putting it in Manchester, for example, and saying, ‘This is exactly what I want you to deliver, and I’m giving you all of my political power to do this thing’, it might work.

“He has to be really clear about why he’s doing it and what those people are doing, and he has to avoid any sort of duplication between No 10 North and No 10 South.”

She explains: “The worst version of this is having special advisers or officials in No 10 North and in 10 Downing Street all claiming to speak for the prime minister and not talking to each other. That is a recipe for disaster.”

“It’s all changed so much since Brexit, and Andy and James are going to have to get their heads around that”

Emphasising the importance of the ‘No 10’ name, as others do, Keenan warns: “In government, if it ends up getting called anything other than ‘No 10’, bad things will happen. The number of times that you would say, ‘No 10 have asked for this’, and if the response to that is, ‘No 10 or No 10 North?’, I worry that starts to get into a slightly dangerous, ‘Who actually has authority in that system?’”

She believes that the risk of second campuses in other departments is that they become a backwater, but here the primary danger is that it has “overlapping power”.

That is not so much of a concern when applied to the Treasury, however, as she acknowledges: “At the moment, there’s a big vacuum in terms of strategic priority setting around the prime minister, and the Treasury comes in and fills that.” Labour MPs who would like to see Burnham abolish the Treasury altogether (along with the Office for Budget Responsibility) say they hope a No 10 North will at least disempower it.

The IfG supports breaking up the Cabinet Office and creating a ‘Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet’.

“You can stop using No 10 the building as No 10 the office, because that doesn’t work,” Keenan argues, as do many others. “It has been horribly underpowered for too long. Now, this isn’t going to fix it… You need to do much more fundamental reforms to the centre of government.

“You still have an enormous Cabinet Office that is quite amorphous and too large and unfocused and doesn’t really support the prime minister properly – what are you doing with that? But it is fine and good to bolster the power of No 10.”

Reform will not be without its significant challenges. A former senior civil servant highlights that while Burnham may prove to be a “lucky general”, benefiting from tough policy decisions taken by his predecessor, he and his chief of staff will have to adapt quickly to a very different machine from the one they inhabited during their last period in government. “It’s all changed so much since Brexit, and Andy and James are going to have to get their heads around that.”

Notably, Purnell was a member of the expert advisory group that helped guide a paper on how a new Downing Street department would work, published by the Future Governance Forum (FGF) in November last year.

Its proposal for a streamlined ‘Executive Office for the Prime Minister’ would see No 10 configured around four functions: a politics and strategy group; a policy and delivery group; a diplomacy and security group; and a private office. A communications team and political office would also operate across all four.

An Honest Day, the paper by (now outgoing) Labour Growth Group director Mark McVitie earlier this year, similarly recommended the creation of a ‘Department of the Prime Minister’ that would absorb the “useful functions” of the Cabinet Office, leaving No 10 to behave “as a centre of power within the wider department, much like the West Wing within the White House”.

So, could Burnham and Purnell succeed where Dominic Cummings and Morgan McSweeney failed? At a minimum, No 10 North answers FGF’s calls for a greater clarity of purpose and perhaps also clarity of roles and responsibilities. The House understands the Burnham operation is likely to go further than that.

A well-placed source describes as “nailed on” that it will implement at least some of the FGF’s recommendations on a new structure for No 10. The politics and strategy group is the function seen as best-suited to being based out of No 10 North. “I think they want to move a lot of senior people there. It’s real,” the source says.

Those who are cynical about No 10 North – and worried about talent problems – point to the 2007 relocation of Office for National Statistics (ONS) headquarters to Newport, considered by many to be a disaster. An independent review following the move away from London concluded that it had made the recognised national statistical institute’s output worse, due to a significant loss of experienced staff. About 90 per cent of London-based ONS staff chose to leave rather than relocate.

Optimists say the merits of other government hubs offer a better clue to No 10 North’s potential.

The Treasury’s Darlington Economic Campus, the DEC, has benefited from the presence of second permanent secretary Beth Russell. It comprises seven different departments and has open-plan floors, allowing civil servants from all of them to work beside each other, breaking down silos.

The atmosphere is said to be a positive one. Staff are motivated and proud to work there, particularly as equivalent jobs with similar prestige are not easy to find in the area – unlike in London. Above all, it is a modern, functional building, complete with air conditioning. The DEC is also just a short walk from the train station, enabling it to pull in talent from across multiple regions.

Conservative MP James Wild recently highlighted that Chancellor Rachel Reeves has worked from the DEC only twice in the last year, and junior ministers just once each. But others point out that many meetings are held by video call anyway, as it’s more efficient and there aren’t enough big meeting spaces in London.

A former senior No 10 figure calls the No 10 North idea “deeply impractical” because, they say, “No 10 only works with the PM physically present”. The view is shared by others quoted in this piece. One source even says McSweeney’s tendency to work from home on Fridays sometimes slowed down No 10.

But there is also the perspective expressed by IfG’s Keenan: that assuming everyone must be in the same building represents “quite an archaic way of thinking”.

“In some ways, the prime minister not being in Manchester and allowing that bit of No 10 space every week to do some of the thinking and the work that isn’t sucked into the daily crisis comms machine that 10 Downing Street can be is no bad thing,” she says.

“We have a capital city, and our capital city is London, and our ministers and our Parliament exist here, and stuff is going to happen here. That doesn’t mean you can’t ship other bits outside of London, but it’s just being honest about what that looks like, and what the purpose of each bit is.”

No 10 North has given rise to bigger questions over Burnham’s agenda. Devolution has been celebrated across both Labour and the Conservatives for years, yet not all Labour MPs are convinced.

Labour MPs who do not represent constituencies that currently sit in a mayoralty, and especially those in areas with no obvious path to mayoralties, are concerned that their locals will be disadvantaged by Burnham’s plans.

The model of devolution also matters. In a piece for The House, Labour MP Alex Mayer urges Burnham to “look almost anywhere but Greater Manchester” for inspiration. Her area – Bedfordshire, Luton and Milton Keynes – is evenly divided between parties, making disagreement the norm and consensus difficult. The London model, she argues, would be preferable for the next stage of devolution.

There are also those who doubt that Burnham’s priorities of promoting devolution and addressing inequality are, in fact, symbiotic. One Labour MP with a northern seat says they wonder whether his push for devolution could actually entrench inequalities, by giving revenue-raising powers to areas where this capability will be naturally limited by existing deprivation.

Even some in favour of a growth-first approach believe that devolution will work as an incentive structure for places around the country to improve, but means there will be winners and losers. The argument for devolution works best, they say, when framed as a Brexit-style drive for sovereignty and power – not fixing inequality.

Mirte Boot, principal research fellow and interim head at IPPR North, which has offices in Manchester and is seen as close to Burnham, has a different take.

“Right now, if you’re a mayor and you invest in a business park, and that creates higher wages in your area, or higher business rate income, that nearly all goes back to the Treasury. So, you don’t necessarily have an incentive or a reward for investing in growth,” she says.

Boot goes on to acknowledge: “Fiscal devolution does benefit those areas able to create growth. To ensure no area is left behind, what you then need is some kind of mechanism, like an equalisation mechanism, where after you’ve given away tax powers, you do some redistribution.

“Every local area is able to make those investments for growth, then there is a redistribution after a couple of years to make sure that the areas that are left behind aren’t left behind too far. Thirty countries already do this, and we can take examples from Germany and Denmark for how it’s done.”

Like Burnham, she argues that centralisation is at “the core of a lot of our problems in this country”, and highlights that of every £1 we pay in tax, 96p goes straight to the Treasury.

“It’s not just about creating a second Westminster here,” Boot says of No 10 North. “This is about working really closely with local leaders all around the country, but especially here in the North, in a different way.

“I think it will change the way that politics is done, and it may be quite uncomfortable for those used to having everything so concentrated, but it could lead to different decisions and a different style of governing that is probably more connected with the rest of the country.”

As for the potential problems of overlap with other departments, she adds: “Every department is going to have to give up some power. That is the reality of it, with devolution. Not just MHCLG, but also DfE, DBT and others – all of them will have to think about how to make that work, and we will have to overcome resistance to that.” 

Wylfa on Anglesey selected as the site for the UK’s first small modular reactor nuclear plant

“I think we are at a real moment,” Simon Roddy, the new CEO of Great British Energy – Nuclear (GBE-N), tells us early on in his sit-down conversation with Total Politics. “The need for secure, reliable and clean energy has never been greater. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity.”

This conviction was strong enough to persuade Roddy to leave a successful career in the private sector to head up GBE-N, taking on one of the biggest infrastructure challenges in Britain. It is a challenge that he believes the nation is ready to meet. With electricity demand increasing and energy security at the centre of political debate, Roddy says the question is no longer whether we embrace nuclear. Instead, it is how we successfully deliver it.

That is where GBE-N comes in. Created less than three years ago, the organisation has already achieved a series of important milestones, including the Small Modular Reactor (SMR) competition, the appointment of Rolls-Royce SMR as a technology partner, and plans in place for the deployment of the first SMRs at Wylfa on Anglesey.

Roddy is aware that he has stepped into an industry with a long and storied history. Britain was one of the pioneers of civil nuclear power. He told us that level of embedded expertise is a major national asset. “I am extremely conscious of the heritage, and I approach it with enormous enthusiasm, but also a great deal of humility,” he says. “I look at the experience, skills and expertise that made nuclear what it was in the UK. That capability is still there. That commitment is still there. That hunger to put nuclear back at the heart of the system is still there.”

That blend of heritage and opportunity is what motivated Roddy to make the move into nuclear after three decades of work in the energy sector. Throughout our conversation, he remains clear-sighted about the primary task ahead of him.

The power station might be in Wylfa, but the capability to design it, engineer it, and build it comes from all over the UK

“Our mission over the coming days, weeks, months, and years is to get Wylfa right,” he states bluntly. “That is what we will be remembered for.”

For Roddy, the significance of the Anglesey project extends far beyond the construction of a new power station. It is also about demonstrating that Britain can once again deliver major infrastructure projects at pace and scale.

“Yes, it is a power station,” he reminds us, “But it is also a reset of nuclear in the UK. It is putting nuclear back at the heart of our energy system.”

Roddy points out that the lessons learned at Wylfa will shape what comes next. One of the attractions of SMRs, he tells us, is the potential to move away from one-off projects and pioneer a repeatable model that can be deployed at pace across the country.

“The whole concept of replication and of improvement through standardisation and therefore the ability to deploy at scale is at the heart of SMR,” Roddy explains. “The modular concept is transformational.”

Having spent a great deal of time at the Anglesey site since taking up the role, Roddy says he has been struck by the level of local enthusiasm. However, he highlights that the impact of work on Wylfa will be felt far beyond Anglesey.

“The power station might be in Wylfa, but the capability to design it, engineer it, and build it comes from all over the UK,” Roddy tells us. “This is a national mission and a national endeavour.”

Roddy points out GBE-N is on track to meet its ambition for 70 per cent of GBE-N contracts to be awarded to UK companies. But the GBE-N Chief Executive believes that success is about more than jobs, investment, or a single power station. It is about creating the stable energy foundation that underpins our entire way of life.

Trust, he tells us, will ultimately determine whether that generational opportunity is realised.

“Trust plays a critical role,” he says. “Whether that’s with residents, our neighbours, those who live on Anglesey, the different regulatory agencies, the supply chain, or the wider public.”

That emphasis on trust runs through Roddy’s approach to leadership. It is also closely tied to the culture he wants to build inside GBE-N to drive its ambition to innovate to benefit the nation.

“The most successful organisations are those that have a culture that helps identify issues early and have that supporting environment to address the challenges together,” he says. “That is the culture we want.”

The ability to overcome challenges will be vital if GBE-N is to succeed. Major infrastructure projects inevitably encounter difficulties. What distinguishes the best organisations, Roddy argues, is the ability to respond when those moments arise.

“Any project of this size and scale will have bumps,” he points out. “The challenge is how you work together, how you build the coalition to avoid them or manage them in the best possible way.”

He believes that the level of alignment already emerging across government, regulators, and industry makes GBE-N well-placed to achieve that goal.

“The support from government and from regulators has been very strong,” he says. “There is an absolute focus and commitment on how we actually work together to move forward safely and at pace. There is no trade-off. We can do them both.”

For Roddy, Wylfa is the place where Britain’s nuclear heritage and future ambitions will initially come together. Partners are now in place. The expertise and technology already exist. The challenge now is one of delivery.

The prize on offer is much greater than a single project. It is the opportunity to establish a new model for nuclear deployment, unlock future sites, and put nuclear back at the centre of the nation’s energy future.

We hope you love the products we recommend! All of them were independently selected by our editors. Just so you know, HuffPost UK may collect a share of sales or other compensation from the links on this page if you decide to shop from them. Oh, and FYI — prices are accurate and items in stock as of time of publication.

Whenever I saw someone with a basket bag as a child, I’d think: ‘why are they carrying their shopping bag around with them everywhere?’.

That tells you everything you need to know about me as a child, and shows you just how far I’ve come (okay, growth!).

This year, I simply can’t stop nonnamaxxing. From my furniture, to my meals, and even my clothes, I simply must embody the spirit of a chic mediterranean woman wafting through a market at all times – whether I’m at work, at the pub, or going to the shops.

It makes complete sense – we’re experiencing one of the hottest summers on record, and I can barely leave my house without breaking into a severe sweat.

Not to mention it’s too hot to eat anything other than picky bits. Hence, my nonnamaxxing sensibilities have finally found their way into my accessories, too.

I’ve been seeing basket bags wherever I look, and these are the 13 tempting my wallet as we speak. Payday could never come quicker.

Why does exercise help to reverse muscle ageing?

The change might act as a “rewind button”

Peter Franklin is an Associate Editor of UnHerd.

Say what you like about the wealth tax advocate Gary Stevenson — and just about everyone has lately — but, at least, he’s been willing to face his adversaries.

He interviewed some of them in his Channel 4 documentary, How to Get Filthy Rich with Gary Stevenson. I wish certain other high profile “activists” were as upfront and open to scrutiny.

Nevertheless, it can’t be denied that Stevenson has come off worse from the experience. Naturally, his central argument — for a 2 per cent annual tax on assets totalling over £10 million — attracted criticism from the right. But more damaging was the reception from the left. Lucy Mangan of The Guardian gave Stevenson’s documentary a two-star review. It’s presenter was “left floundering” by the critics he interviewed, she said. Another critic, the tax expert and longtime Labour Party member, Dan Neidle, was also unimpressed. Here he is, in his interview with Stevenson, painfully exposing the basic flaws in his big idea.

Of course, one needn’t possess Neidle’s forensic knowledge of the tax system to understand why the proposal — or anything close to it — wouldn’t work.

In a global economy, capital doesn’t sit still. It moves to where it attracts the highest returns and/or is subject to the lowest taxes. No one with a good accountant is going to keep an asset in a country where the government simply confiscates 2 per cent of its value each and every year. At least, not unless the asset appreciates in value by a sufficient margin over the annual tax rate — which is likely to bias the deployment of capital towards short-term speculation instead of the long-term investment that our economy desperately needs.

The practical problems with the Stevenson tax don’t end there. But rather than shoot fish in a barrel, I’d like to tackle a more difficult — and fascinating — aspect of this debate. It’s articulated by the Blue Labour MP, Jonathan Hinder:

“The Right’s response to a wealth tax is always “but it won’t work!” What I find interesting is that there is rarely an attempt to argue against it on moral grounds…”

As it happens, James Cleverly responded to Hinder’s tweet, making the point that that “it won’t work” is a moral argument. One needn’t agree with Tony Blair’s claim that “what’s right is what works” to see that “what doesn’t work, isn’t right” — not when other people’s time and effort is at stake. But let’s steel man Hinder’s argument by assuming that a new wealth tax would work — by which I mean raise a significant amount of revenue for the public purse without killing the golden goose.

In such a scenario, is there still a moral problem with taxing wealth? Or to make the question even harder — isn’t it obviously better than, say, taxing earned income? Framed that way, wealth taxation doesn’t just find support on the left, but from many centrists too — and even a few right-wingers (I could name names, but won’t).

Before going on, let me clarify that I’m not just talking about wealth-taxing the super-rich. Stevenson’s proposal applies to asset totals exceeding £10 million, but you can bet that any serious shift towards wealth taxation would start hitting much lower thresholds. Andy Burnham’s people are already floating the idea of reducing the Mansion Tax threshold from £2 million to £1.5 million. We can see where this is heading. For his part, Jonathan Hinder wants a “a proportional property tax” — and I’ve little doubt that proportionality would mean punishing cash-poor pensioners for the crime of living in a nice-ish house in the South East.

It’s a fundamental principle of progressive taxation that the amount asked for should be related to the ability to pay. That’s why modern tax systems focus on income (and its close proxy, consumption) not wealth. Indeed, from a conservative point of view, the best argument against libertarian claims that tax-is-theft is that tax is a commission on everything that a well-governed country does to enable its inhabitants to earn money. By contrast, demanding money from someone merely on the basis that they own something (which they’ve paid for out of already-taxed income) isn’t a commission, it is confiscation.

Of course, there’s the counter-argument that such taxpayers are nevertheless able to pay because assets can be sold to settle the bill. That may mean forcing people out of their homes, but to a certain kind of “rational” liberal, this is offset by the more efficient allocation of housing stock that supposedly results. On the other hand, to a conservative, it is a violation of the home and of family life — and, therefore, objectively evil.

Ah, but what about the aBaird increase in the value of these sacred suburban semis over the last fifty years? Why are the pensioners I want to protect from expropriation morally entitled to that?

Let me reply in three ways:

Firstly, property inflation in this country is indeed ridiculous, yet from the point of view of a long-term home owner it is still the same house. It’s paper value is, in most circumstances, notional and the lived experience of “wealth” unchanged. Secondly, many forms of wealth tax — like the Mansion Tax — take no account of the capital gain or loss: someone who bought a taxable property yesterday pays the same as someone who was lucky enough to buy an identical residence decades ago. And, thirdly, far from fixing the housing crisis, which is a crisis of affordability, a shift to taxing wealth would give politicians a perverse incentive to keep it going.

While we’re on the subject of perverse incentives, let’s look at another moral hazard that comes with wealth taxation:

By now, we’re all too familiar with the concept of public borrowing as a tax on future generations. It allows politicians today to buy votes with money that our children and grandchildren will have to pay back. No doubt you see the problem with that. Well, I’d argue that wealth taxation is its mirror image i.e. it is a tax on the past. I’ll explain:

“Wealth“, for most people, is literally what the taxman has previously allowed us to keep from our earnings minus what we had to (or chose to) consume. It therefore represents the willingness and ability of past governments to a) restrain their spending b) hold down the cost of living and c) encourage the citizenry to build-up capital. These, surely, are things that our leaders should be encouraged to strive for. In this regard, the trouble with wealth taxation is that it allows incumbent governments to leech off the responsibility of their predecessors. It’s the equivalent of raiding a sovereign wealth fund to bankroll profligate spending — only, in this case, the fund is owned individually by the people, not the state.

It’s another reason why a tax base consisting of current income and consumption is greatly to be preferred: because it directly incentivises serving governments to foster ongoing growth and prosperity instead of strip-mining past achievements. To put it another way, ministers should be farmers, not scavengers.

OK, that’s my argument against wealth taxation in general. But what about the billionaire problem? Is it fair that they should be able to get away with effective tax rates below those paid by the rest of us?

Absolutely not, but the solution isn’t crude wealth taxation — not least because the mega-wealthy are those best-placed to take their money elsewhere. Better then to recognise this reality and develop the capacity of government to do deals on a case-by-case basis

In this respect, HMG isn’t entirely without cards to play. Holders of great wealth, whether individuals or corporate entities, have a problem: their money doesn’t exist in the abstract, it has to go somewhere. In that respect, the UK is an attractive destination — not least because we’ve yet to indulge (much) in the self-cannibalisation that is taxing wealth.

Instead, we need to be bolder in the way we influence where global capital flows to in this country and the impact it has while it’s here. For instance, there’s a world of difference between investing in the UK-based industries of the future and outbidding first-time buyers for new housing stock. One creates the good jobs that Britain needs, the other a new class of serfs (not to mention, a generation of voters for the left).

These are qualitative — and, I would say, moral — distinctions that a wealth tax cannot capture.