Arthur Reynolds is a journalist, a former civil servant and government speechwriter.

Changes in leadership animate Whitehall like nothing else. With Andy Burnham set to become Prime Minister and carry out a swinging reshuffle in 10 days’ time, officials will be scrambling around to prepare for their new masters.

In my six years on Whitehall, I witnessed this process eight times, and it reveals everything that is wrong with the modern civil service.

Even the most obscure teams in each department spend hours contributing to ‘day one briefing packs’ for new ministers. These tomes are hundreds of pages long, riddled with jargon, and full of indecipherable statistics. Despite the department’s most senior officials poring over their contents and writing twee cover notes advertising how wonderful their work is, I am convinced not a single minister read them.

I never bothered to make that point internally, because I know the answer I would have received: “But that’s the process. It doesn’t matter if they read it, we’ve done our bit.”

From replying to every rambling letter from a member of the public to advertising jobs nationally when an internal candidate is already nailed on for the role, our civil service excels in work for work’s sake.

So much behaviour around a reshuffle is performative, designed to maintain the illusion that our bureaucracy is a ‘Rolls-Royce machine’. A flurry of notes is passed between departments to relay how a minister likes their coffee, their go-to lunch order, the font they like for speeches, whether their submissions should be single or double-spaced. All vitally important information that couldn’t possibly be gleaned by asking them.

Officials believe they are smoothing the way for their new bosses, when in fact, they are infantilising them. As Liz Truss has observed, the position of a minister – particularly a junior one – is akin to that of a child emperor: their smallest personal preferences are pandered to, but their ability to change the country is practically zero.

As Andy Burnham’s charges are set to find out, this Whitehall charm offensive belies a desire to control the course of policymaking. As I have written about elsewhere, reshuffles and changes of government are perfect opportunities for bureaucrats to resurrect policies their last boss killed off.

From cutting the winter fuel allowance to introducing the family farms tax, many of Keir Starmer’s most unpopular policies were Whitehall plans the Conservatives resisted. Burnham’s team should keep their guard up and avoid surrendering decision making to the ‘experts’.

But he has had less than a month to prepare for government, and has pledged to honour the 2024 manifesto. His devolution revolution, meanwhile, will have had no visible effect on voters’ lives by the end of his term. That leaves continuing Starmer’s stodgy social democracy as the only path available.

The public are not fools.

They will not hear a Prime Minister with a northern accent and think all the country’s ills are solved. Coupled with the inevitable implosion of Reform, this leaves the next election in play.

As absurd as this might have sounded a matter of months ago, the Conservatives have the opportunity to return to government in some form. They’re ahead of Labour in the polls and trail Reform by little more than the margin of error on data taken before the George Cottrell affair fully unravelled.

Kemi’s patient, policy-first approach is looking wiser by the day. The Conservatives can only avoid Starmer’s fate by making a bulletproof plan and imposing it on the Whitehall machine.

Legislation to break up Blairite structures that put power in the hands of unaccountable quangocrats should be prepared ahead of time and enacted in the first 100 days. So too should measures to revive drilling in the North Sea and scrap the Public Sector Equality Duty – the legal basis that underpins the DEI state.

Resistance will inevitably come from the permanent bureaucracy. That’s why the Conservatives must not be shy of borrowing ideas and bringing in experts from the outside.

Reform has suggested replacing Whitehall’s permanent secretaries – the officials who, in effect, run government departments – with political hires who support its programme. This is a common-sense proposal. And it’s not like Reform hasn’t adopted ideas from the Tory right on leaving the ECHR and rolling back net zero.

Candidate selection, though, offers a chance to differentiate from both Reform and Labour. The former hasn’t lived up to its rhetoric on bringing in outside experience, as the disastrous choice of Robert Kenyon to contest the Makerfield by-election demonstrated. The latter has proved that a party made up of ex-charity workers, lobbyists or political staff cannot meet the mood of the nation.

Professional politicians who know how to work the system have a place, but we need entrepreneurs and innovators who can transform it too. The local champions who made up much of the 2019 Conservative intake won’t make reforming ministers.

Faced with a new Labour leader who’s accustomed to a complete lack of scrutiny, and a Reform party whose only electoral asset is mired in scandal, there is a real chance Kemi Badenoch could become Prime Minister after the next election.

She should plan accordingly and prepare to do battle with Britain’s bureaucracy.

3 min read27 min

Thirty per cent of people selected this option when research organisation Thinks Insight & Strategy asked what historians will consider to be the outgoing PM’s greatest achievements.

The second most selected option was getting the Labour Party elected at the 2024 general election (22 per cent), and third was introducing a social ban for under-16s (19 per cent), according to an online survey of 2,079 people carried out between 24-25 June.

However, the largest share (33 per cent) said “none of these / “don’t know” in response to twelve options put to them.

Ben Shimshon, co-founder and CEO of Thinks Insight & Strategy, said the findings indicate that Starmer has struggled to persuade the public that he has delivered in areas that were core to his premiership.

“At the moment, few of the claims Starmer made in his resignation speech are supported by the public. Only small minorities are prepared to acknowledge any improvement in the economy, the NHS, or even immigration numbers (where the official numbers do indicate significant falls),” he told PoliticsHome.

“For the two-thirds who acknowledge any achievements at all, getting Labour elected is the most established, alongside two relatively late, but relatively popular decisions: the social media ban for under-16s, and most strongly, keeping the UK out of the US/ Iran war.”

The joint fourth-most-selected achievements, at 16 per cent, were starting to repair the UK’s EU relationship and bringing down NHS waiting times. Reducing small boat crossings and closing asylum hotels was selected by just 6 per cent.

The survey was carried out after Starmer’s resignation speech on 22 June and Andy Burnham’s emphatic victory in the Makerfield by-election a few days before.

It is now almost certain that Burnham will become the UK’s seventh prime minister in a decade later this month after well over 300 Labour MPs, a comfortable majority of the party, nominated the former Manchester mayor to succeed Starmer in No 10 on Thursday.

Elsewhere, the Thinks Insight & Strategy research found that a Burnham leadership boosts Labour’s chances of keeping hold of voters who supported the party at the last general election, especially those who are considering Zack Polanski’s Greens.

However, the findings also suggested that Burnham will not have long to impress the public.

Over half of respondents (54 per cent) said they would know within six months whether a new prime minister was doing a good job, and only 19 per cent said they would give them longer than that. Twelve per cent said they would know straight away. 

Just over half of respondents (51 per cent) said that if Burnham is effective as PM, they would see real improvements within a year of him entering office, while 37 per cent said it would take at least a year or two.

“The direction of travel needs to be clear within 12 months, and whatever it is, that direction needs to feel like change,” said Shimshon.

How?

It also helps to prevent spills

Per Delicious, the oft-unnoticed detail design also helps to keep your coffee where it should be (ideally, either in your mouth or in the cup).

(Ievgen Chabanov/Alamy)

4 min read15 min

But for many across the country, an England match brings a different sense of anxiety entirely. Instead of celebrating the result, they are bracing themselves for the final whistle.

Incidents of domestic abuse increase by 38 per cent when England lose and 26 per cent when they win or draw. According to domestic abuse charity Refuge, sadly fewer than 24 per cent of domestic abuse incidents are reported, so the real increase is likely to be much greater.

In a now-infamous video posted on X, Reform MP for Runcorn and Helsby, Sarah Pochin, is filmed saying that “on the occasions that England lose their football matches, instances of domestic violence go through the roof”, ending the video urging the “boys” to “keep winning”. She flippantly captioned the video: “For the sake of women’s safety, we need England to keep winning”.

I won’t speculate as to whether she is intentionally espousing disingenuous narratives around domestic abuse for views or genuinely believes the responsibility of keeping women safe lies with the England team and its performance. This issue is beyond political point scoring. This is about violence.

I’ll be clear: women’s safety does not depend on whether Harry Kane scores a penalty. It depends on whether we are prepared to hold perpetrators to account, properly fund survivors’ support services, invest in preventative measures, and stop allowing politicians to treat violence against women as fodder for social media clips. No result – win, lose or draw – ever justifies abuse.

Getting the language right is only the first step. We also need to prepare for the reality that frontline organisations know is coming. That’s why I’m supporting Women’s Aid’s new campaign, The Other Kick Off, which highlights the estimated time that domestic abuse is predicted to rise after the final whistle. Raising awareness is especially poignant this year, as the late-night matches alongside a perpetrator’s likely increased alcohol consumption heighten the chances of domestic abuse occurring and create an even more isolating, frightening environment for survivors.

Football and alcohol do not cause domestic abuse. But major tournaments can intensify the circumstances in which abuse pre-exists. Heightened emotions, drinking and gambling can increase volatility and coercive behaviour – but responsibility always lies with the perpetrator.

Many perpetrators of domestic abuse are completely sober, and identifying alcohol as the cause incorrectly shifts the blame away from them.  

Incidents of domestic abuse increase by 38 per cent when England lose and 26 per cent when they win or draw

Advertisement

None of this should diminish the joy that football brings millions of people. But enjoying the tournament shouldn’t mean ignoring the evidence. One in three women will experience domestic abuse during their lifetime. Reports increase when England play, and after England’s next game, women in abusive relationships are more likely to experience harm.

I regularly meet with domestic abuse organisations in my constituency of Bath. Before the tournament began, they told me that they expected a surge in demand on top of their already overstretched services.

With cuts to health and social services, ever-reducing government funding and short-term commissioning rounds, domestic abuse organisations are struggling to meet the growing demand for their services all year round – not just during the World Cup. 

And yet these vital organisations help survivors access the tools needed to recognise abuse, support them to escape harm, offer housing, legal advice and health services, and are integral to stopping the cycle of abuse.

We need guaranteed long-term funding for these life-saving domestic abuse services. I’m calling on the government to end the short-term competitive commissioning rounds that pit domestic abuse organisations against each other in a fight for the same small pot of money.

I’ll be cheering England on like millions of others this summer. Whatever the score, though, women’s safety depends not on what happens on the pitch but on whether we are serious enough to confront violence against women and girls off it. 

Wera Hobhouse is Liberal Democrat MP for Bath

Which Tube lines will face disruptions on 11-12 June?

1) Metropolitan line

2) Piccadilly line

3) District line

There will also be DLR cancellations

And the Overground will be affected too

What’s that?!

Should I ever worry about floaters?

The Government’s decision to launch the £350 million Critical Chemicals Resilience Fund (CCRF) has been welcomed right across the UK chemicals sector as recognition of the industry’s strategic importance. However, as manufacturers we say yes, it’s not just about the money, but it is about much more financial support (eg energy costs some of which can come through policy change) as well as wider policy reviews. 

The success of the initiative will ultimately depend on whether it forms part of a broader support mechanism capable of restoring the UK’s long-term competitiveness as we transition to a net zero industry.

For years, we have argued that the industry has been overlooked despite underpinning almost every major manufacturing supply chain in Britain. From pharmaceuticals and food production to water treatment, aerospace, automotive and defence, critical chemicals are essential to keeping UK industry operating.

The CCRF marks a significant shift in government thinking. Rather than viewing chemicals solely as a major industrial emitter or export sector, ministers are increasingly framing domestic production as a matter of economic resilience and national security. Recent supply chain disruptions, energy price shocks and geopolitical instability have exposed the risks of relying heavily on imported materials and overseas production.

We have broadly welcomed that change in approach.

The announcement is an important acknowledgement that chemicals form part of the UK’s critical infrastructure. While welcoming the funding, improving industrial competitiveness would require sustained action beyond a single investment programme, particularly on energy costs and long-term policy certainty.

Those concerns remain central to the industry’s outlook.

We continue to face some of the highest industrial electricity prices among developed economies, while competitors in the United States and parts of Asia benefit from lower energy costs and substantial government incentives. Investment decisions are increasingly influenced by these structural differences, with companies carefully weighing where to locate future production capacity.

Against that backdrop, many chemical companies see the CCRF as an encouraging first step rather than a complete solution.

The fund is expected to support strategically important production facilities, strengthen domestic supply chains and help safeguard capabilities considered essential to the wider economy. For manufacturers dependent on reliable supplies of specialist chemicals, greater resilience could reduce the risk of future disruption while supporting domestic value creation.

The announcement also reflects a wider international trend. Governments across Europe, North America and Asia are adopting more interventionist industrial policies, recognising that strategic manufacturing sectors require greater support in an increasingly uncertain global trading environment. Chemicals now sit alongside semiconductors, batteries and critical minerals as industries viewed through the lens of economic security.

That shift presents opportunities for the UK, but only if policy remains consistent.

Manufacturers continue to call for a competitive industrial energy strategy, faster planning and permitting processes, support for decarbonisation technologies and greater investment in innovation and workforce skills. Without those complementary measures, there is concern that individual funding programmes may struggle to reverse longer-term investment trends. And we want to see more companies invest in the UK.

The implementation of the CCRF will therefore be closely watched. Decisions over eligibility, project selection and investment priorities will determine whether the fund strengthens genuinely critical production capacity or simply provides short-term financial support.

Nevertheless, the symbolism of the announcement should not be underestimated. Chemical sites right across the country are keen to engage with their local MP and any member of the House of Lords, to show how they operate and discuss issues.

For an industry that has spent several years making the case that chemical manufacturing is fundamental to the UK’s industrial base, the creation of the Critical Chemicals Resilience Fund represents an important policy milestone. It signals that government increasingly recognises resilience, domestic capability and supply chain security as strategic assets rather than simply commercial considerations.

Whether that recognition translates into sustained industrial growth will depend on what comes next. Manufacturers have welcomed the government’s commitment, but their message is clear: resilience requires more than one funding programme. It demands a long-term partnership between industry and government to ensure that the UK remains a competitive location for chemical manufacturing in an increasingly challenging global market.

This is an opportunity for us to say, even sing, “Chemistry’s coming home”, but it’s not here yet.