Charles, Lord Banner is a practising planning KC as well as a working peer, and Jack Airey is Director of Housing and Infrastructure at Public First having previously been a planning advisor in No 10.

One of the most consequential planning reforms of the past few decades was a Conservative achievement.

In 2012 a Conservative-led government took more than a thousand pages of planning policy and cut them down to barely fifty, with a presumption in favour of sustainable development at its heart. That turbocharged the granting of permissions. Housebuilding climbed to just under 250,000 homes a year before the pandemic, and has steadily declined since.

The new National Planning Policy Framework, brought forward under Labour, continues that work, and it is a strong document. It opens up brownfield land across the country. It takes a sensible view of green belt allowing its less important parts to be considered for development.

Reforms like these take time to bite, but they will eventually support more private enterprise, more homes and more families able to buy, some of the values the Conservative Party exists to defend.

The framework is the bedrock for a large increase in housebuilding next parliament, provided the jobs and wage growth are there to give people the means to buy. Labour will not hit its target of 1.5 million homes. Overzealous tax and regulation have made building unprofitable in too many places, and a stagnant economy means the demand is not yet there.

Yet a big rise in delivery is desperately needed. The average home in England now costs 7.6 times average earnings.

At the turn of the century it was about four.

The planning system now in place could underwrite that rise early next decade, and it may well be a Conservative government that presides over it. Any temptation to commit to scrap the reforms should therefore be resisted.

Opposition of course still has its place. The NPPF can be improved, and the wider system is far too slow. It does too little for the small and medium builders who cannot get a scheme off the ground because the sums do not work, and it burdens some sites with so many requirements that they cannot actually be built. Ministers should also be pressed on Sadiq Khan’s London Plan, which as drafted will do next to nothing for the capital’s housing crisis. All of that can be argued for while still backing the core of the reforms.

It is worth learning from the experience of New Zealand. Facing a housing shortage as bad as ours, Labour and the National Party worked together to deliver major planning reforms, having decided the problem was too serious for the usual point-scoring.

The reforms led to more housebuilding and housing becoming more affordable.

The Conservatives can stand with the millions who want a home of their own, and the many whose livelihoods depend on building them, while still speaking for local people who want development done right. Held together, those are the makings of a winning coalition. A party founded on ownership and enterprise should build it.

But what we weren’t expecting was that this recent Su-naissance would extend to the Ted Lasso universe.

Since it premiered at the beginning of this month, the former Britain’s Got Talent star has been the name on everyone’s lips in Ted Lasso’s fourth season.

Over the weekend, Susan shared a video of herself watching the latest of Ted Lasso on Instagram, showing Jason Sudeiki’s character admitting he’d finally got round to watching “this Susan Boyle audition”.

“She’s the most talented woman on earth,” he declared, prompting a response from the woman herself.

“Cheers Ted!” Susan enthused, before taking a sip from a dedicated “Ted” mug to reveal the feeling was very much mutual.

“I’m back alright,” she enthused at the time. “I’m feeling OK, and ready to go.”

4 min read5 min

Hospice and palliative care face a severe funding problem. A National Audit Office report published at the end of last year found that nearly two-thirds of England’s independent hospices ran a financial deficit in 2023/24, with expenditures exceeding income by £78m. The hospice care provider, Marie Curie, revealed this year that around 170,000 people die annually in England with unaddressed symptoms, and unmet palliative care needs are expected to rise by 23 per cent in the next 25 years unless drastic measures are taken to fix the deficiencies.

Such a context is not one in which assisted suicide should be legalised. Individuals with unmet palliative care needs would not be given genuine choice at the end of their lives. Sufficient treatment would often not be an option, but a hastened death would be. Indeed, as health secretary, Wes Streeting warned that funding for palliative and end-of-life care would have to be reduced so funding could be diverted to set up assisted suicide services.

Lauren Edwards, the MP sponsoring the latest iteration of the assisted suicide bill, responded to the Prime Minister’s statement by making the claim that you don’t have to choose between fixing palliative care or having assisted suicide – it would be possible to have both. This has become a common refrain from supporters, but there cannot be a genuine choice if funding for care is so inadequate that some terminally ill people may feel forced into a premature death because their basic needs are not being met. The argument just doesn’t hold water.

Not only would there likely be less funding to fix palliative care if assisted suicide were to be introduced, which would bring its own costs, but the reforms needed to solve the deeply entrenched funding problems in the care sector are not a quick fix; they will take time.

The assisted suicide legislation includes an implementation period of a maximum of four years that would begin immediately after receiving Royal Assent and becoming law. This would mean that, after four years, assisted suicide would automatically be introduced regardless of the state of palliative care services at that time. I have every hope that the PM achieves his goal of fixing the funding issues in the care sector, but setting a hard limit of only a few years – less than the lifespan of one parliament – to fully address this monumental problem would be an irresponsible hostage to fortune.

Experts also agree that it is simply not feasible to attempt to do both at the same time. Professor Katherine Sleeman, Chair in Palliative Care at King’s College, London, has said that introducing assisted suicide when care services are so fragmented presents a “huge risk” that people may decide to end their lives “simply because of lack of high-quality care”. Professor Mumtaz Patel, President of the Royal College of Physicians, said something similar to the House of Lords Select Committee that considered the last assisted suicide bill: that people would certainly choose to end their lives “because of the lack of provision around good palliative care”. That, surely, is not what anyone wants.

Fixing palliative care is of enduring national importance, and it is welcome that the PM, along with both supporters and opponents of the assisted suicide legislation, recognises it as such. MPs must unite to implement the reforms needed to address these funding issues.

And yet, it seems irrefutable to me that care services cannot be fixed concurrently with the legalisation of assisted suicide, and that assisted suicide could not be introduced safely. Care services remain in a poor state. The obvious solution, as the PM has recognised, is to defer any talk of assisted suicide until we have fixed the issues with palliative care. Anything else would be irresponsible.

Mary Glindon is Labour MP for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend

1) “Anything that died in the drought! If it survived, it can stay”

2) “Hydrangeas”

3) “Lupins”

4) “50% of the lawn”

5) “Pots and planters. All of them”

6) “Courgettes”

7) “Sweet peas”

Dr Stephen Goss is a freelance historian, lectures in history and politics in London, and is a Conservative councillor in Reading.

The big story from Northern Ireland this month is the truly remarkable success of Belfast hosting Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann this year. ‘The Fleadh’, as it is known, is an annual music festival which has been running for 75 years. A different village, town, or city on the island of Ireland is selected to host the festivities which celebrate and promote traditional Irish music and dance. In a similar way to the Edinburgh Fringe now overshadowing the Edinburgh International Festival, the ‘craic agus ceol’ surrounding the Fleadh has eclipsed the formal competitions at its heart.

This was its first visit to Belfast. The organisers expected 800,000 people; instead, footfall of over 1.6 million visitors has been recorded over the eight days. To put this perspective, the population of Northern Ireland is approximately 1.9 million.

Yet, the statistics scarcely convey the atmosphere.

Serendipitously I was home in Belfast while the Fleadh was taking place. Streets were cleaned and pedestrianised, businesses entered into the spirit of the event, and music and drinking spilled out from pubs and venues into the public realm. A city usually divided and dysfunctional showed it could be relaxed and welcoming. A triumph for Belfast, its economy and tourism, it sets the stage for what will hopefully be an even greater success when the Fleadh returns to the city next August.

However, such is the nature of Northern Irish politics, the event could not escape attempts to force it into Northern Ireland’s familiar zero-sum narrative. I have written previously about nationalist contrived outrage, and it raised its ugly head again on this occasion. Some nationalist and republican commentators seemed invested in unionist rejection. Jude Collins predicted there would be ‘distressingly few Protestants/unionists availing themselves of the chance to hear the best in Irish music, dance and culture’. There is too much bigotry, dismissiveness, and sectarianism in this assessment from the Belfast republican press for me to summarise here. The general assumption was that unionists and loyalists would boycott, protest, or at best ignore the Fleadh. Any that held their nose and engaged with it were to be considered doing so for purely cynical, political reasons.

While Jim Allister and the Traditional Unionist Voice raised concerns over the cost and disruption caused by the event (and objections to a Post Office selling Irish tricolours), unionism in fact embraced the Fleadh. Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly, Edwin Poots MLA (briefly DUP Leader; the DUP’s Liz Truss), stated at an event in Stormont to welcome performers to the Fleadh in Belfast:

‘Musical traditions flow through the veins of the community across Northern Ireland… This is an opportunity to celebrate all the different traditions that have been passed from one generation to the next and to share them with new audiences, and for Belfast to open its doors and demonstrate the warmth of its welcome’.

The Deputy First Minister, DUP MLA Emma Little-Pengelly spoke from the main stage of the Fleadh. She said: ‘Respecting another’s culture never diminishes our own… Confidence in who we are gives us the freedom to celebrate the richness of others…. Culture need not divide us’. She spoke of a ‘cultural heritage that belongs to no single tradition. A cultural future that certainly does not’.

Those were not merely gracious words delivered from a platform. Loyalist marching bands were not left at the festival’s edge, either literally or figuratively. The Belfast Bands Forum was represented on the organising committee and presented an Ulster Bands Showcase at the Titanic Slipways. Flute and accordion bands, Lambeg drummers, pipe bands, and Highland dancers all took part. The strongest rebuttal to the caricatures came from the welcome these musicians received. The Shankill Road Defenders were applauded not only at the City Hall, but Band member Dr. Gordon Ramsey described the reception as ‘extraordinary’. He said they had received substantially more support than criticism from within their own community.

This was not loyalism holding its nose, nor unionism cynically trying to appropriate somebody else’s celebration; it was confident participation. As Belfast Bands Forum chairman Darren Leighton observed:

‘One of the most important things for us has been challenging some of the stereotypes around the marching band community… we simply put our musicians and our culture on the stage and allowed people to experience it for themselves… Our musicians stepped outside their comfort zones this week, performed in front of new audiences and were welcomed everywhere they went’.

Despite the assumptions of many, unionism was far from outraged at the Fleadh and its success. However, this month has seen indignation within unionism. With the DUP in turmoil over who knew what and said nothing about the now convicted Jeffrey Donaldson, for the first time in decades, the Ulster Unionists have overtaken the DUP in the polls.

Therefore, it seemed like typical Ulster Unionist self-sabotage when last week the party leader fell out with his Health Minister. Leader Jon Burrows publicly declared that emergency general surgery must remain at Causeway Hospital, placing himself directly at odds with former leader (twice) Mike Nesbitt. Although Nesbitt had not yet taken a final decision, he accused Burrows of imposing a new ‘red line’ and objected to discovering his leader’s position from the media.

This comes after another former leader of the Ulster Unionists, Doug Beattie, resigned from the party in May. So, was the outrage of both Party Leader and Health Minister typical – or contrived? Although located in East Londonderry, Causeway Hospital also serves communities within Burrows’s own North Antrim constituency. Burrows was co-opted as North Antrim MLA only last August. He has yet to face the electorate. Defending a hospital serving communities across his north-coast hinterland allows him to demonstrate ahead of next May’s Assembly election that he is more than a drop-in. It presents him as a decisive leader, willing to challenge the health bureaucracy on behalf of patients, and a representative who will do whatever it takes to defend the interests of his constituents.

The appointment of Lagan Valley MLA Robbie Butler as Nesbitt’s successor may be more strategically significant still. Butler was the alternative for party leader earlier this year. Giving him Northern Ireland’s most prominent ministerial portfolio provides a platform from which to build a much larger public profile. Butler has yet to be drawn on the decision he will make regarding the Causeway Hospital.

DUP turmoil allowed Alliance’s Sorcha Eastwood to snatch Lagan Valley from unionism at the 2024 general election. The same poll that puts the Ulster Unionists ahead of the DUP has Alliance at a five-year low of ten per cent. With the Ulster Unionists now polling ahead of both parties, Butler has an opportunity to establish himself as the principal challenger to Eastwood.

The Fleadh demonstrated how Northern Ireland’s familiar assumptions should not be taken as certainties. Loyalists were expected to sulk outside; instead, they marched onto the stage and were warmly applauded. If Burrows is returned at next May’s Assembly election with his own mandate, and Butler emerges as the strongest challenger for Donaldson’s former Westminster fortress of Lagan Valley, what looked like the first shots of another Ulster Unionist civil war may instead prove to have been the opening salvo of its long overdue electoral recovery.