How does a typical daily commute impact our skin, particularly in busy cities?

What is one of the most common habits you see people doing on commutes that could lead to skin breakouts?

Are certain skin types more vulnerable to commute-related damage?

How exactly does pollution damage skin, and what signs should we look out for?

Can makeup or sunscreen act as a barrier against environmental aggressors during our commute?

Are there any skincare misconceptions you’d love to debunk?

It’s always a challenge keeping good news a secret in Westminster and Whitehall. An underwhelmed air hung over the latest Allocation Round as the pot 3 budget for offshore wind, announced in October set at £900m, was forecast to deliver far fewer gigawatts than required to neither put a spring back in the step of industry nor make government deployment targets for 2030 a likely reality.

So with the announcement on 14^th January 2026 that a staggering 8.44 GW of offshore wind projects were granted Contracts for Difference (CfDs), enabled by an enhanced budget of almost £1.8bn, the biggest surprise was that the government had actually managed to keep this a secret until the very last minute.

The success of the auction is not just in big numbers though. Crucial floating offshore wind projects in the Celtic Sea (Erebus) and North Sea (Pentland) were awarded CfDs, and at a strike price 10 per cent lower than the administrative strike price for AR7. This gives much needed answers to geographic questions about floating offshore wind deployment. This is combined with large procurement of fixed offshore wind capacity in key regions in Scotland, North East England and East Anglia.

All in all, this bumper allocation round provides a strong signal to offshore wind developers, manufacturers and supply chain companies up and down the country that this government doesn’t just back offshore wind, but is committing it right to the heart of the future energy system. We’ve heard similar rhetoric from previous governments without such follow through, so this is a welcome message, strongly conveyed. Indeed, the decision to extend the budget would presumably have gone through both HM Treasury and No10 for sign off, indicating that this industry has support right from the top of the Labour Administration.

Now that colours are firmly nailed to the offshore wind mast (or should that be turbine), attention must turn to getting the supply chain match-fit to deliver on getting them built. With 8.4GW to deliver, the supply chain can comfortably invest; to quote a colleague, “There are many companies looking to establish themselves into offshore wind, and with this scale of opportunity on the horizon, it’s easier for investors to get on board”. With clearing prices around £90/MWh, UK companies should be able to compete with cheaper imports that have geopolitical risk attached. It should also provide a signal to foreign direct investment that while other markets might be increasingly unstable or too nascent to justify the risk, the UK is open for offshore wind business and a key location for manufacturing.

We must focus on the core technologies highlighted with the Industrial Growth Plan, ensuring that the UK plays to our strengths in turbine blades, cables, substructures and operations and maintenance. Attention must turn to efficiency and innovation; how can we get consents delivered faster, manufacturing times reduced and operational costs down in the long term. Use of drones, UAVs, continuous at sea sensors and predictive AI modelling have a role to play in this process. The UK has a wealth of expertise, academic throughput and innovation credentials; harnessing them can provide an economic boom that supercharges the industry and delivers on the job creation and regional economic growth that this government has deemed among its highest priorities.

The late 2020s now hold significant potential for growth of the offshore wind sector in the UK, which is complemented by the developing international market for these technologies. If the UK leverages this boom correctly, we can lead the way on technology, standardisation and regulation. If the government plays this right, we will have a multigenerational industry that rivals the domestic aerospace and automotive sectors in terms of regional, national and international significance.

Gas turbines at Elon Musk’s xAI data centre in Memphis, USA. (Associated Press / Alamy)

8 min read27 min

By Keir Starmer’s own admission, AI – and the scramble to support its development – is the “global race of our lives”. Just over 12 months ago, the Prime Minister pledged that Britain would be at the front of that race and become “one of the great AI superpowers”.

Perhaps the most significant barrier to realising that ambition is the UK’s ageing electricity grid, which is heavily congested – especially in parts of the country where AI companies are most interested in sitting their data centres.

The government knows this and is establishing ‘AI growth zones’ in areas that can demonstrate access to at least 500MW of power capacity by 2030.

Yet for AI companies, the pull of Greater London and other energy-constrained urban areas is considerable. Being close to those places means better proximity to internet exchanges and to many of their key customers, such as tech firms and financial services.

Providing energy connections to data centres is seen as urgent for the country’s economic growth, but experts agree that there is a mismatch between what the grid can realistically deliver in the short term and the speed with which the government wants to see these facilities built.

While this situation is not unique to the UK, according to consultancy Ember Energy the average wait here for a data centre seeking a grid connection – around nine years – is longer than in many other countries.

To get round those grid constraints, data centre developers across the world are increasingly turning to gas.

In 2025, the US almost tripled its planned gas-fired capacity to 252GW. According to Global Energy Monitor (GEM), a US-based NGO, more than a third of that capacity is intended to provide on-site power generation for data centres.

Gas-powered data centres have also been built or are in development in Ireland and a handful of other European countries.

While GEM is not aware of any UK data centres currently using gas-fired power plants as their primary energy source, there are indications that such projects are on their way.

The House has learned that National Gas, the private operator of Britain’s gas transmission network, has so far received eight separate enquiries from data centre developers about the feasibility of getting a pipeline connection to their facilities.

All but one are located in the South of England. While no formal applications have yet gone live, a few have submitted draft applications through National Gas’ customer hub.

National Gas’ understanding is that these projects are interested in the option of temporarily using the gas network as their sole power source. Once an electricity connection becomes available, the gas could then be used as back-up generation or to provide balancing services during periods of tight electricity margins.

Howard Forster, chief operating officer of Cadent, one of the UK’s regional gas distribution companies, says having a gas link is attractive for data centre developers who may be wary of relying solely on the electricity grid.

“I suspect they may go for both types of connection in any event, in order to have that resilience. Like many large industrial users, they look for that resilience from the get-go, rather than being a response to a delay,” he tells The House.

“But certainly, what the connection will allow them to do is progress their project sooner rather than later in some instances, for sure.”

Cadent has struck nine connection agreements with data centres over the last year, with gas expected to start flowing to some of them over the coming months. As the locations and scope of those projects is commercially confidential, however, it is unclear whether some or any of them intend to use the gas as their sole power source.

Forster adds that the carbon impact of gas-burning can be mitigated through the use of purchase agreements with biomethane producers. Cadent already has 47 biomethane producers connected to its network and is working to increase that number.

But it is clear that in overall terms a surge in gas use by data centres would have an impact on the UK’s 2030 clean power mission. Under that target, the government wants at least 95 per cent of Great Britain’s power generation to come from “clean” sources in a “typical weather year” from 2030 onwards.

Tone Langengen, a senior policy adviser at the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change (TBI), believes the adoption of some gas power as a “bridging” approach – while more renewable power sources are being developed – would be a “pragmatic” way for the government to achieve its AI growth ambitions. In October, TBI published a report arguing that the government should drop the 2030 clean power mission.

“Our view is that is the wrong target at this moment and it is much more important that the UK thinks about a slightly slower paced, but more effective, route to net-zero, which maintains our competitiveness in the AI era,” says Langengen. “That means keeping energy bills low, making sure we can build the data centres we need…

“I think nuclear will be a really big part of the solution in future, but we can’t wait for those to be developed.”

In its UK Compute Roadmap, the government revealed its “forecast” that “the UK will need at least 6GW of AI-capable data centre capacity by 2030”, a threefold increase on data centre capacity at the time of the document’s publication in July last year. 

But even that scale of increase may have been an underestimate, as it cautioned: “Should the capabilities and adoption of AI accelerate, demand could exceed this baseline significantly.”

Whether gas can play an increased role in the UK’s AI economy is being discussed at the highest level. Some of the biggest names in the sector – Google, Microsoft, Amazon and others – hold regular meetings via the AI Energy Council with Science Secretary Liz Kendall and Energy Secretary Ed Miliband.

Minutes from the group’s June 2025 meeting state that “temporary on-site generation, including natural gas fuel cells, was raised as an interim measure to meet power needs during grid connection delays”. The minutes do not make clear which attendee raised the topic.

Experts in the sector tell The House that the issue remains a source of tension between the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Dsit) and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Desnz).

“There is quite a lot of internal friction and issues between those teams,” says one expert, who adds that it is “unclear” whether No 10 realises that there may be a conflict between their AI ambitions on the one hand and the clean power mission on the other.

Another expert says the government has failed to seriously engage with the issue: “The Cabinet don’t understand the scale of the problem and the trade-offs that they’re facing. There’s this kind of mythology that everything will work out, when fundamentally it won’t.”

Perhaps the clearest clue to the government’s thinking in this area emerged at a select committee hearing in late January with the energy minister Michael Shanks, who said the AI Energy Council’s discussions had been “forward-leaning” on the topic of “self-build” power solutions.

Polly Billington, Labour MP for East Thanet and a former adviser to Miliband, asked Shanks: “Do you feel that the adoption of gas-fired power stations would be ‘forward-leaning’?”

The minister replied: “Obviously, our clean power action plan is to decarbonise the power system. So, it is not going to be our position that – post-2030 – we should see unabated gas, and that’s very clear from us.

“But there’s a need for us to provide capacity for the data centres that we want to bring to this country, for hugely important economic growth reasons, that [means] we will be open to how a self-build model might work.”

New infrastructure must be future-proofed, not locked into the broken fossil fuel model of the past

Advertisement

Labour’s environmentalist MPs will be watching such developments closely.

“Relying on gas is outdated, risky and exactly what drove the energy bills crisis for British industry in the first place,” Billington tells The House. 

“New infrastructure must be future-proofed, not locked into the broken fossil fuel model of the past.”

Olivia Blake, chair of Parliament’s cross-party Climate and Nature Caucus, meanwhile says the prospect of gas-fired data centres in Britain is “really concerning” and that it would be “interesting” to hear the view of the UK’s independent Climate Change Committee.

“We know they [data centres] require a huge amount of energy, so it would be quite a significant amount of gas that would be burnt,” the Labour MP for Sheffield Hallam says.

“I think the government has been incredibly ambitious, they’re really doing exceedingly well on offshore wind, and we’ve seen some really good policies coming through Desnz. It would be a shame for that to be undermined by this new strain on the gas network.”

A spokesperson for the National Energy System Operator (Neso) commented: “The demand pipeline is a critical lever for unlocking capacity and enabling projects that matter most for the UK’s economic growth and ambitions in areas such as AI and data centres.

“Alongside government and Ofgem, Neso will work with the wider energy industry to shape reforms that balance innovation, fairness, and system resilience.”

A government spokesperson said: “The AI Energy Council is exploring opportunities to attract investment and support the development of clean power for data centres.

 “We are also working with Ofgem and network companies to reform the outdated connections process and speed up delivery of new infrastructure, freeing up grid capacity to make it easier for data centres to secure a timely connection.”

Ofgem, the energy regulator, confirmed it will publish an update on those reforms “in the coming weeks”. 

Reeves calls for close ties with EU

“Rachel Reeves has said that she is “up for” taking Britain closer to the EU. The Chancellor described current negotiations over youth mobility, food standards and energy policy as “first base” and said closer relations with the bloc represented the “biggest prize” for the British economy. Speaking at an event in London organised by the Bruegel think tank, Ms Reeves said Labour was willing to cede more powers to Brussels to secure a better economic deal. The comments are a significant shift in tone from the Chancellor, who just weeks ago told an audience in Davos that Britain could not go “back in time” in its relationship with the EU.” – Daily Telegraph

• Chancellor warned NHS faces massive £20bn black hole that could spark fresh tax misery for millions – The Sun

Appointments 1) Starmer was aware Lord Doyle backed paedophile, No 10 admits

“Sir Keir Starmer nominated a former adviser for a peerage despite being told that he provided a paedophile councillor with “support” because he “believed in his innocence”. Lord Doyle, a former director of communications in Downing Street, told Number 10 he had been “supportive” of Sean Morton after he was charged with possessing and distributing indecent images of children. The disclosure will raise further questions about the prime minister’s judgment in the wake of the scandal over the former British ambassador to the US Lord Mandelson’s links to Jeffrey Epstein, the paedophile financier. Starmer stood by his decision to ennoble Doyle for more than six weeks after he had been made aware that his communications chief had campaigned for Morton as an independent councillor despite him being charged with sex offences.” – The Times

• Vetting process for Mandelson needed more awkward questions, expert says – The Guardian
• Streeting’s links to lobbyist prompt calls for tighter rules – The Times
• Friends and foes of Wes Streeting put down their weapons, for now – The Times
• New shame for spineless Starmer – Leader, Daily Mail
• Starmer KC started ranting and turned into Sid Vicious – Quentin Letts, Daily Mail

>Today: Columnist John Oxley: Are we in a new phase for all Prime Ministers? The era of ‘two year Keir’

>Yesterday: Video: PMQS: Badenoch accuses PM of sacking a string of allies to save himself

Appointments 2) Calls for a woman deputy PM, to change culture

“Female Labour MPs have demanded that Keir Starmer appoint a senior woman as his de facto deputy to oversee a “complete culture change” in Downing Street after a series of scandals that they say have exposed a No 10 “boys’ club”. Harriet Harman, one of the party’s most senior figures, urged Starmer to revive the role of first secretary of state on Wednesday, a post occupied by Peter Mandelson under Gordon Brown.” – The Guardian

• Nandy calls for end to briefings ‘dripping with misogyny’ – Daily Telegraph
• Westminster fears release of ‘embarrassing’ exchanges in Mandelson data dump – Financial Times
• What message does Starmer’s behaviour send to the women who are victims of sexual abuse? – Dan Hodges, Daily Mail
• Labour’s humiliation is richly deserved – Juliet Samuel, The Times
• There was method in Anas Sarwar’s mad mutiny – Alex Massie, The Times

Appointments 3) Challenge to Romeo being the next Cabinet Secretary

“The former boss of the mandarin widely tipped to become the next Cabinet Secretary has urged Sir Keir Starmer to undertake full due diligence checks on her. The Prime Minister is set to appoint as his most senior civil servant to replace Sir Chris Wormald, who is expected to resign after a year in post. The Home Office permanent secretary will become Britain’s first female Cabinet Secretary as part of a wider shake up of the top team at Downing Street. While serving as British consul general in New York in 2017, she was investigated, and subsequently cleared, over allegations of bullying and misusing expenses.” – Daily Telegraph

• Why is the mandarin who backed Peter Mandelson as US ambassador still at the heart of No10? – Andrew Pierce, Daily Mail
• Starmer faces backlash over ousting of Britain’s top civil servant – Financial Times

Economy only grew by 0.1 per cent in final quarter

The economy grew by 0.1% in the final quarter of last year, ONS figures show. This is in line with what economists had predicted. As well as the quarterly figure, the ONS also published December’s monthly GDP figure this morning. This shows the economy also grew by 0.1% on a monthly basis. But the figure for the previous month of November was revised down from 0.3% to 0.2%.” – BBC

Ratcliffe declares UK has been ‘colonised’ by immigrants

“Keir Starmer has demanded Sir Jim Ratcliffe apologise for saying “the UK has been colonised by immigrants”. The Prime Minister hit back on Wednesday night by calling the Manchester United co-owner’s comments “offensive and wrong”…In an interview with Sky News, the businessman said politicians needed to “do some difficult things with the UK to get it back on track”. The founder and chairman of one of the world’s largest chemical companies, Ineos, shared why he believes Britain faces profound political, social and economic challenges. He said: “You can’t have an economy with nine million people on benefits and huge levels of immigrants coming in.” – Daily Express

Reform UK working to prevent Lords veto of their policies

“Reform UK is drawing up plans to bypass the House of Lords in order to push through a radical agenda if it gets into government. Senior figures in the party are concerned that opposition peers will block or hold up its legislation in the Upper Chamber. Nigel Farage, the Reform leader, has urged the Government to allow him to appoint some life peers, but his party would have to stack the Lords with hundreds of new members to compete with Labour and the Conservatives. The party is working on ways to circumvent the Lords’ veto by beefing up the power of ministers and backbench Commons committees.” – Daily Telegraph

>Today: Albert Ward on Comment: Reform UK refute suggestions they’ve ‘hit a ceiling’ but they have and here’s why

Labour shelves plans for 20 free schools

“Vulnerable children are being put at risk by Labour’s free schools review, campaigners have warned. Pausing plans for 20 new state schools for excluded pupils could force more children into low-quality provision, according to a report from the New Schools Network (NSN). In December, the Government announced it was cancelling dozens of planned free schools, including 18 for children with special needs or those unable to attend mainstream education.” – Daily Telegraph

• Half of all new school funding in past decade spent on Send – The Times

New rules on political donations planned

“Labour will end the use of “dodgy front companies” that hide the source of dark money for political donations as part of its sweeping elections bill, which will give votes to 16-year-olds and pave the way for “opt-out” voter registration. Gifts and hospitality for politicians sponsored by foreign states or companies will also be severely curbed, the Guardian understands. The government also intends to put new restrictions on cryptocurrency donations and the size of foreign donations, a key concern of Labour MPs about money that may be funnelled to Reform UK.” – The Guardian

• Green Party has most to gain from lowering voting age – Daily Mail

Four in 10 migrants will challenge Labour deportation plans with slavery claims

“As many as four in 10 Channel migrants earmarked for deportation under Sir Keir Starmer’s “one in, one out” scheme are claiming to be victims of modern slavery in an attempt to thwart their removal. They are claiming to have been victims of trafficking when they were in their home country, in transit or in the UK, according to the Home Office. The disclosure comes as the Government faces a High Court legal challenge by 16 migrants attempting to block their deportation.” – Daily Telegraph

Green Party 1) Whistleblower sends report to counter-terrorism police

“The Green Party has been reported to counter-terrorism police by an internal whistleblower. Fears are growing that the party is becoming a breeding-ground for anti-Jewish extremists. Hard-Left activists have joined the Greens in recent months in protest at Labour’s stance on the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza. But a push by pro-Palestine Greens to declare the party ‘anti-Zionist’ has horrified many existing members, who fear extremism, sectarianism and anti-Semitism are being tolerated under Zack Polanski’s leadership.” – Daily Mail

Green Party 2) Activists thrown out of assisted living complex

“A team of Green Party activists was thrown out of an assisted living complex in Gorton and Denton after “distressing” elderly residents with their campaigning. The party has apologised and promised to investigate the incident, which occurred last weekend at the Dahlia House apartment centre in Burnage, Greater Manchester, ahead of the by-election on February 26. The facility is designed for retirees who wish to live independently but want shared facilities or require regular help from carers. The Telegraph understands that a team of Green Party campaigners gained access to the complex and began door-to-door canvassing, which elderly residents found confusing and frightening.” – Daily Telegraph

Tax pushing up cost of holidays

“Holiday bosses have told the Chancellor that getaways are for “relaxing, not taxing” amid fears staycations could rocket by an extra £100 or more. Two hundred bosses from firms such as Butlin’s, Haven and Parkdean Resorts have written to Rachel Reeves, blasting the proposed “holiday tax”. The campaign comes amid concerns £10 per night could be added per night away for a family of five. Shadow Business Secretary Andrew Griffith said: “We’ve a one-trick, miserablist, tax raising government. They’ll tax you more if you drive your car, get on a plane and now if you stay in a bed on holiday.” Ms Reeves has been told it could lead to shorter trips, abandoned travel plans or holidaymakers going abroad.” – The Sun

• Anti-fun party want to wreck your holiday – Leader, The Sun

Other political news

• Lib Dems set out plan to replace Treasury with ‘Department for Growth’ – Financial Times
• Youth work ‘black holes’ in half of all council areas in England, study finds – The Guardian
• Council refuses to enforce 100pc tax on ‘vital’ second home owners – Daily Telegraph
• Reform will not defund Bangor university over free speech row, politician says – BBC
• Labour admits failings over China spy fiasco – Daily Telegraph
• Bangladesh votes in first election after political upheaval – BBC
• Join the military, jobcentres to advise unemployed young Britons – Financial Times

Heath: Labour’s lurch to the Left at odds with public attitudes

“There will be jubilation across the land when Starmer, a nasty, dishonest avatar of a Prime Minister is ousted but the Labour rebels’ confirmation bias makes them incapable of understanding why he is so hated, or the historic paradigm shift upending British society. Yes, voters despise Starmer’s character flaws but public opinion is shifting more profoundly. Despite demographic change and welfare creep, voters are moving Rightwards, not Leftwards, as many ludicrously believe.” – Allister Heath, Daily Telegraph

• Britain should pray that Starmer survives – Janan Ganesh, Financial Times
• A lurch to the left would be a costly gamble Britain can’t afford – Leader, The Times

News in brief

• Inside Keir Starmer’s downfall – Tim Shipman, The Spectator
• What is Angela Rayner up to? – Ethan Croft, New Statesman
• Why did anyone ever listen to Noam Chomsky? – Joseph Dinnage, CapX
• Hope Not Hate political organiser and former Labour councillor pleads guilty to child sexual offences – Toby Young, Daily Sceptic
• We have to mend SEND – Zachary Marsh, The Critic

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.

Gourmand fragrances – or perfumes that smell good enough to eat – are all the rage right now.

It used to be that only sweet scents like vanilla and caramel counted as gourmand perfumes, but now there’s a huge range of savoury elements out there to play with, too (hello Tom Ford).

So, whether you’ve got a sweet tooth nostril, or you’re more into savoury stuff, here are some of the best gourmand scents out there for you to choose from.

John Oxley is a consultant, writer, and broadcaster. His SubStack is Joxley Writes.

While the Starmer project limps on from crisis to scandal, the Prime Minister’s days as Labour leader seem numbered.

His cabinet might still be behind him, but given the prospect of bruising local elections, he seems more useful to them as a human shield than as a PM.

Starmer’s route to political survival is narrow and requires a level of good judgment that has so far eluded him. Few would bet on the PM being in place by the end of the year; fewer still would bet on seeing out his term.  His eventual defenestration will emphasise a new trend in British politics: the short tenure of top officeholders.

If Starmer goes over the summer, there’s a chance he will have served less time in Number 10 than Rishi Sunak. Should he fall by mid-July, we will have had 7 Prime Ministers in a decade, counting from the last days of the Cameron ministry. This would be a record unseen since the 1820s and the tumultuous days of the Reform Act, Catholic emancipation, and the Corn Laws. Even if one ignores the precise dates and records, it represents a significant change in modern British politics.

Since the fall of Cameron, no Prime Minister has completed a full electoral term. Each of his successors has run out of political road before then. Most have been done in by their own party when their political capital was exhausted. Only Rishi Sunak was ousted by the public. Perhaps even more remarkably, Edward Heath was the last Prime Minister to enter and exit Downing Street via an election. It appears that two or three years of leadership is becoming the new norm.

Plenty has been written about why that is.

The more generous assessments point to the difficulties of running modern Britain, a country where growth has stalled, demography is placing greater demands on the state, and there are few politically easy answers. Others have pointed to lacklustre politicians. For each of the names in the last decade, it is easy to point to the personal and political misjudgements that undid them. The true reason is likely a combination of both – difficult circumstances often played badly.

Whatever the reason, the rapid cycling of Prime Ministers raises questions about the stability of government and policy. If short tenures, often less than an electoral cycle, become the norm, this would challenge how we conduct politics. These are real issues of legitimacy, of how government operates, and of how those who rely on it respond. Understanding them is important for how our politics functions in an era of increased instability.

Whenever there is a change of PM, oppositions like to crow about an “unelected” leader taking over, constitutionally, they are misguided. At the technical level, we elect MPs, who, in turn, provide confidence to a Prime Minister appointed by the monarch. There is no mechanism for directly electing a Prime Minister, and no illegitimacy in one who has never faced a popular vote. Yet at the policy level, there are real reasons to be sceptical about this system.

The collapse of a leader generally suggests that they have failed. Support within their own party is generally a proxy for support in the wider country. Leaders are ousted when they begin to smell like electoral oblivion, either because they or their policies have foundered. Their successor will be expected to change tack, re-evaluate what was failing and do something better. But this, in turn, raises a question about the scope of their mandate and the extent to which they may deviate from the original manifesto.

This is more than a theoretical problem.

New legislative agendas must pass through Parliament, including the Lords. A lack of public endorsement and the protection afforded by the Salisbury Convention make them easier to amend and to block. A PM without a personal mandate may struggle to deliver convincing change, even when there is public demand for it. Theresa May serves as a stark reminder of what happens when someone attempts to lead without a mandate. She struggled to achieve a consensus on Brexit and failed further when she lost an election to secure one.

The economic challenge is different. A change of leader likely means a new Chancellor and a new fiscal direction. There are few constitutional brakes on that, provided the government has the parliamentary numbers to get a Budget passed and avoid a governmental collapse. It does, however, present a challenge for businesses that rely on government direction to make decisions.

Here, stability is a huge advantage. Everyone is, of course, aware of the democratic cycle and the reality that things can shift every five years or so. Chronic leadership instability shortens this time span. This creates difficulty for anyone trying to plan and direct investment. If it takes two or three years to develop an idea into a concrete outcome, rapid changes in the political situation can disrupt it. If the entire fiscal approach might change within the same timescale, everything becomes inherently riskier.

The same problem affects the public sector as well. We already know that state services are slow to implement change. Part of this is inertia; part of it is the reality that these are large organisations that take time to adapt to changing priorities and policies. Parliamentary terms allowed for this; effectively cutting them in half does not. This is more disruptive than the usual ebb and flow of ministerial changes, with a new PM likely to have different areas of interest and focus, which are rolled out before previous initiatives have properly bedded in.

There is a risk that we are drifting into an era of provisional Prime Ministers, and, consequently, temporary politics. Stability is self-reinforcing. Leaders who hold power for a credible period of time can deliver results, and doing so extends their legitimacy. The most consequential leaders of modern history are those who have achieved successive terms in power. The opposite appears to be true as well. Bad government causes instability, which in turn undermines governance further.

Britain’s constitutional flexibility is usually an advantage. Indeed, the rapid change of Prime Ministers is itself a result of this. Leaders do not remain in office once their moral authority is eroded, eking out a full term despite being a political lame duck. But it comes at a cost, and a sense of Prime Ministers as disposable undermines government authority, with the public, parliament, and business poorly served by changes in direction coming every couple of years.

These rapid-fire changes perhaps reflect the conditions we are in, and those who have ended up trying to manage them. If every political career ends in failure, it is striking how those that were once measured in decades now last a few years, and that time at the top has become fleeting rather than a sustained platform for delivery. Our system allows leaders to fall; it does not require them to be disposable. If tenures are shrinking, it is a sign not of constitutional weakness but of repeated political misjudgement.

As another premiership falters, it is perhaps worth thinking of why we end up in this situation so often, and the wider costs it brings.