3 min read20 min

As the hard deadline of the 28 October Budget approaches, despite a recent uptick in the opinion polls, the spectre of another fall in support cannot be ruled out.

Enter our latest research, which finds that a Labour manifesto commitment to full European Union membership would secure the most support from across the electoral coalition voters the Prime Minister must persuade to back him at the next general election.

The public have repeatedly made clear that they support far stronger ties with our closest allies and partners in the EU, on everything from trade to travel and defence, and will resoundingly reward parties who take the plunge.

This week, fresh polling by YouGov, commissioned by Best for Britain, and endorsed by former Labour leader, Lord Neil Kinnock, Burnham’s long-time mentor, and ex-European Commission vice president, both quantifies that support and makes the next step wholly unambiguous.

Committing to rejoining the EU in Labour’s next manifesto is vital for the party’s chances at the next general election.

Our research shows that it would significantly boost enthusiasm and inclination to vote for the party by a full 7 per cent across all voters in Great Britain (10K+ GB adults). British Future’s recent research added to the evidence base that the public wants the government to go beyond Keir Starmer’s ‘red lines’ on Europe. Our findings, based on clear data, take it further. It’s there in black and white – and red all over. 

There’s another reason that now is the time for bold action.

As Kinnock rightly highlights, “increasing numbers of people across Britain already know [this] to be the patriotic course”. On Monday, when the first ministers of the UK’s three devolved nations, including Plaid Cymru leader Rhun ap Iorwerth, signed a memorandum at Cardiff Castle, including the powerful commitment that “the future of their nations belong in the European Union”, the son of Tredegar made the unifying case. The argument for repairing the unnecessary damage caused by Brexit, for every person across all four nations of the UK. Not only that, but for Labour to lead the way, as both “public opinion and world realities make this advance essential”. Hear, hear. 

What’s more, the irrefutable growth case has also been set out in an independent econometric study by Frontier Economics, demonstrating that restoring our membership of the world’s largest, and our nearest, trading bloc can deliver a £92bn boost to the UK’s GDP, at the barest minimum, concentrated in the former industrial and manufacturing heartlands Burnham’s roots lie so deeply within. This is a route that can no longer be avoided, overlooked, or ignored. 

The siren calls – from crypto-cash funded populism and identity-driven nationalism – are all too real. The risks of dwindling public consent following a Budget feeding frenzy, coupled with emptying arms stores and public services running on fumes, are equally so.

But with a fair wind, for once, behind them, and an open goal in front, Burnham’s team must recognise that a narrow window of opportunity exists. A natural, likeable ‘every bloke’ with the necessary deftness to carry the country through a course correction occupies the highest office in the land, and is winning hearts and minds. A clear and conclusive path forward does exist which addresses both the political and economic conundrums the PM is confronted with, and can begin to right the wrongs of the past decade.  

It requires only bravery to reap its rewards.

Tom Brufatto is Director of Policy and Research at Best for Britain

Red lunulae have been associated with a range of health conditions

Zay Nyi Nyi via Getty Images

Does that mean I definitely have one of these conditions if I have red lunulae?

As part of our Policy Landscape 2026 report, Nicola McEwen considers the state of the political debate and the immediate and long-term challenges that need to be confronted when it comes to devolution in the UK.

Prime Minister Andy Burnham has made it his mission to “take power out of Westminster and carry it into every postcode in the country”. But it is not clear the ‘devolution revolution’ will extend beyond England’s borders.

Of course, one might think there is less need to progress devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, because they already have far more autonomy from Westminster than English regions.  But Scotland and Wales are nations, not regions. And following the elections in May, the Prime Minister must now face three First Ministers from nationalist parties whose ultimate goal is political independence or, in the case of Sinn Fein’s Michelle O’Neil (whose responsibilities in office are shared with the DUP’s Deputy First Minister), to secure Irish unity.

Both the SNP and Plaid Cymru were elected on manifesto commitments to increase self-government. Both emerged triumphant in contests that witnessed Labour’s continued decline in Scotland and its decimation in Wales. Ignoring their calls for further powers whilst championing devolution in England risks destabilising the Union itself.

There have been long-standing calls, including from successive independent constitutional commissions, to devolve further competences to the Senedd, most notably over policing and justice. Plaid Cymru’s manifesto reiterated these calls, alongside the devolution of powers over the Crown Estate, rail, port regulation, Air Passenger Duty, social security and some aspects of energy policy.

The SNP manifesto called for the devolution of energy policy, employment law, further fiscal autonomy, a Scottish visa scheme, and legislative competence for an independence referendum. These calls have the backing of the Scottish Green Party, whose 15 MSPs join the 57 SNP MSPs in the largest pro-independence majority to date in the Scottish Parliament.

But the Westminster parliament is the legal custodian of the Scotland and Wales Acts and of the future of the Union. The Prime Minister has already informally rejected a second independence referendum. Neither he nor the Secretary of State for Scotland, Douglas Alexander – whose relationship with the Scottish Government can best be described as grim – have responded positively to the other devolution demands. Secretary of State for Wales, Stephen Kinnock, professed himself unconvinced of the need for further devolution, suggesting that devolution could destabilise policing and the Crown Estate.

Both the SNP and Plaid Cymru focused on the cost-of-living crisis in the May elections, reflecting voter priorities. Constitutional battles may thus be seen as an unwelcome distraction from an electorate who want their governments to work together to get things done. Nonetheless, championing devolution in England while snubbing calls for devolution in Scotland and Wales does not bode well for intergovernmental relations.

Labour entered office in 2024 with a commitment to respect devolution and ‘reset’ the UK government’s relationship with the devolved governments, following a deterioration of intergovernmental relations under the Conservatives against the backdrop of Brexit.

This included bringing forward a statutory review of the 2020 UK Internal Market Act, legislation enacted despite considerable opposition from, and without the consent of, the devolved legislatures. The Act was intended to facilitate frictionless trade across the UK after Brexit. Exclusions from its ‘Market Access Principles’ can be sought, without guarantee of being granted, bringing complexity and uncertainty to the legislative process. Without such exclusions, some rules drawn up by devolved governments would not apply to goods and services from other parts of the UK, making it more difficult to realise policy goals. The Act also allowed the UK government to spend directly in devolved policy areas, bypassing the established system of territorial finance and often bypassing the devolved governments. The statutory review committed to environmental and public health benefits being evaluated alongside the economic costs of regulatory divergence in weighing up exclusion requests. But this is unfinished business for the devolved institutions, and there remains a lack of clarity about how, and by whom, these additional criteria will be considered.

The Labour government also promised to restore the Sewel convention – the process of securing consent from the devolved legislatures before enacting legislation in the Westminster Parliament on devolved matters. Long a pragmatic tool for coordinating legislation across governments, this was an important symbol of the authority of the devolved institutions within a constitutional framework otherwise founded upon the undiluted sovereignty of the Westminster parliament. But that symbolism was somewhat undermined during the Brexit process when withheld consent was largely ignored by the UK parliament. It was further undermined when the UK Supreme Court confirmed that the Sewel Convention, which was written into the Scotland and Wales Acts, has no legal effect.

These outstanding issues should be in the Prime Minister’s in-tray. If not, he will surely confront them in intergovernmental forums. Meaningful discussions over further devolution to Scotland and Wales may also be hard to dismiss while championing devolution in England. Such discussions may come with pressure on devolved governments to devolve powers to Scottish and Welsh regions, but devolution within Scotland, Wales or indeed Northern Ireland would ultimately be a matter for the devolved institutions themselves. Over the longer term, simply rejecting calls for an independence referendum may not be enough, especially if support for independence increases. There is an opportunity now to consider, dispassionately, what would constitute and trigger a legitimate process for determining the future of these islands.

The Prime Minister is undoubtedly committed to devolution. He may well prove to have a transformative impact on the governance of England. But to be an effective Prime Minister of the United Kingdom requires understanding and carefully managing the complex set of territorial relationships and identities between the nations of these islands.

By Nicola McEwen, Professor of Public Policy and Governance, University of Glasgow Centre for Public Policy.

Credit: Adobe Stock

There are over 30 million active adults in England, but nearly 12 million are not active enough – and inactivity is more common in areas facing higher levels of social need.

To close the national physical activity gap, we need to think locally.

The people and organisations closest to communities understand their needs, have the relationships to engage people, and are best placed to shape solutions that work for them.

But local action to get more people active does not happen in a vacuum. The most effective approach combines local knowledge, relationships, and leadership with national evidence, expertise, investment, and support.

That balance matters as the government looks to shift power closer to communities and ensure national funding works harder for them.

The opportunity is huge: create the conditions for places to lead, equip them with the support, learning and resources they need, and turn community action into meaningful impact – with the potential to drive national change.

Getting more people active cannot be achieved by one organisation alone. It depends on what happens in the places where people live: the opportunities available to them, how organisations work together and whether communities themselves have a meaningful role in shaping what happens.

That is why our place-based work starts with communities – but is supported nationally. Through National Lottery and Exchequer investment, we are working in partnership with communities across England where inactivity levels are highest, supporting our local partners to create the conditions for more people to get active where they live.

The starting point is understanding what life is like in each place.

Local people understand their communities better than anyone. They know what works, what does not, the resources that are available, which places feel welcoming and what gets in the way of being active. They also know the strengths that already exist – the people, organisations, spaces and relationships that can make a difference.

That insight cannot simply be delivered from the centre. It comes from listening to communities and understanding what shapes activity and inactivity in different places.

But local insight is most powerful when it is combined with evidence, learning and expertise from elsewhere, alongside the investment needed to turn it into action and impact.

Connecting places facing similar challenges and creating opportunities to learn from what is working elsewhere can help local partners build the confidence and capacity to develop approaches that work for their communities.

The result is a national movement powered by local action. And we can see how this approach works in practice.

In Doncaster, more than 2,500 residents have helped create a community-run “Friends of” group that now independently delivers physical activity events in local parks.

In Blackpool, a youth leadership programme, co-designed with 16- to 17-year-olds, has brought young people into leadership spaces to help shape decisions about activity in their community.

These examples look different because the places themselves are different. That is precisely the point.

Place-based working is not about taking the same programme everywhere. It is about understanding what needs to change in each place and giving partners the freedom and support to make it happen. The national role is not to prescribe the solution, but to create the conditions for those solutions to succeed.

That flexibility matters particularly in communities where inactivity is closely connected to wider inequalities.

Our Active Lives research shows that just 53.8 per cent of adults in the least affluent groups are active, compared with 73.2 per cent of the most affluent. There are also significant inequalities in activity levels among disabled people, older adults and some ethnic minority communities.

These differences cannot be explained by motivation alone. Cost, transport, safety, caring responsibilities, confidence and access to facilities and green spaces can all influence whether someone is active.

Local knowledge is essential to understanding those barriers. But tackling them also requires sustained investment, shared evidence, specialist expertise and the ability to learn across places.

There is, of course, a wider prize. Physical activity can improve health and wellbeing, strengthen social connections and help people feel more connected to where they live.  It can also make a significant contribution to reducing pressure on public services. Our research shows that active lifestyles could prevent more than 3.3m cases of chronic health conditions each year, including depression, back pain and type 2 diabetes, delivering an estimated £8bn in direct net savings to the healthcare system.

Realising those benefits requires more than providing opportunities to be active. It requires communities to bring knowledge, trust and lived experience; local organisations to bring relationships and leadership; and national organisations to bring evidence, expertise, investment, accountability and the ability to connect learning across the country.

Localism works best when places are empowered to lead, backed by a national system that helps them learn, invest and deliver – turning local action into national impact.

3 min read16 min

The sums dwarf any previous single donations to political parties and have opened up an urgent debate about the role money plays in our democracy. 

These massive donations haven’t happened in a vacuum; political parties have become increasingly reliant on wealthy donors in recent years. In 2023, Transparency International found that two-thirds of the £85m given to parties in private donations came from just 19 donors, the highest ever share from mega-donors at the time. This problem has become entrenched across the political spectrum.

The colossal Reform donations are of a different order of magnitude and mean we are entering a new epoch in the amounts of money flowing into politics.

This has profound implications for our democracy. The danger now is not just that ultra-wealthy individuals can influence political parties, but effectively buy them with vast donations. The UK is particularly exposed in this regard, in that it currently has no limits on how much individuals can give to political parties. This makes the UK something of an outlier, as countries as diverse as Canada, Australia, Ireland, and Spain all have curbs on political donations.

Huge donations also risk doing profound damage to trust in our democracy. When the public sees ultra-wealthy individuals giving gargantuan sums of money to political parties, they are left wondering what these donors expect in return. That has a corrosive effect on trust in politics, which the British Social Attitudes Survey shows is now at record lows.

There is a clear solution here: the government needs to impose a donations cap that limits how much can be given to a party in a single year. This is something that is supported by the public, with a clear majority wanting a cap. 

We have also seen wide support for a donations cap among MPs as the Representation of the People Bill has made its way through Parliament. Two Labour MPs, Stella Creasy and Alex Sobel, proposed amendments for donations caps of £100,000 and £1m respectively. Even the Prime Minister has previously expressed support for a cap, saying he felt £500,000 was around the right amount. 

So it was disappointing that no proposals for a cap were added to the bill, although a taskforce has now been given the job of looking at the issue.

The case for a cap becomes even stronger in light of the government taking up the recommendation from Sir Philip Rycroft’s review to introduce an annual donations cap of £100,000 for overseas donors. Yet, without a domestic equivalent, we risk having a donations cap for donors based in every country bar the one that matters most, the UK.

The events of the last week show how urgent the matter has become and that action needs to be taken now. 

Our politics is currently dangerously exposed to being for sale to the highest bidder. Inertia would leave us heading towards a crisis of trust in our democracy.

At the heart of this debate there is a simple question: who is it that influences the politicians making decisions that affect all of us? A donations cap is a crucial step to ensuring the answer is always the voters, not wealthy donors.

Darren Hughes is Chief Executive of the Electoral Reform Society