Rachel Reeves, Angela Rayner, Bridget Phillipson, and Lisa Nandy have all served as Cabinet ministers in Keir Starmer’s Labour government (Alamy)

5 min read6 hr

Members of the Women’s Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP), including some who would back Andy Burnham or Wes Streeting in a future race, told PoliticsHome that the party is overdue a female leader.

A formal leadership challenge has not yet been launched to topple Starmer. However, either a contest or a coronation is widely seen as likely soon, after Streeting stepped down as health secretary last week and announced his intention to stand when a contest is underway, and Greater Manchester mayor Burnham announced that he will stand in a parliamentary by-election to re-enter Parliament.

If Burnham wins the Makerfield by-election in June, he is the top choice among Labour members to replace Starmer as leader – with 47 per cent ranking him as their first preference in a YouGov poll this week.

In the same poll, 31 per cent of members said they would support Starmer staying in post, with former deputy prime minister Angela Rayner trailing behind in third on just eight per cent, followed by Streeting on four per cent.

Rayner has long been seen as a potential successor to Starmer, and last week announced that she has resolved her tax affairs with HMRC following an investigation into whether she underpaid stamp duty on her £800,000 flat in Hove. 

Now that the investigation has been resolved, it potentially frees her up to make a bid for the leadership herself. However, if Burnham is able to stand, 69 per cent of party members would vote for him over Rayner, according to YouGov.

Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper, and Deputy Leader Lucy Powell are all also senior female Labour figures who could throw their hats in the ring – but none have nearly as much support across the party as Burnham.

“It’s depressing,” one female Labour MP who has called for the PM to resign told PoliticsHome. 

She said it was “frustrating” that the current leadership “haven’t fostered a culture” where a female leader emerging is “likely”, and described “wider societal misogyny that comes gunning for strong Labour women with a viciousness that you don’t see elsewhere”.

Labour MP Cat Eccles, who has also suggested that Starmer make way for a new leader, said: “We’re definitely overdue for a female leader and if or when we end up in a leadership contest, I hope we see some strong women contenders. 

“So, ideologically yes, but ultimately I think we need the person who can connect and communicate best with people.”

Multiple members of the Women’s PLP told PoliticsHome that female MPs were afraid to put themselves forward for leadership contests due to a combination of misogynistic bullying in the party and the level of online abuse directed towards female politicians on social media.

Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy has previously told The House how she found the experience of running for leader so bruising it put her off ever doing it again.

Senior Labour MP Emily Thornberry recently ruled herself out. Asked by The House whether should try again for the top job, she replied: “No, no, no. I’ve done it before, and it was really difficult and a horrible experience.”

Others spoke about feeling frustrated that there has been a tendency for senior Labour male politicians to “talk about themselves” and that “journalists are just repeating this” – while many women in the PLP feel that the top women in the Cabinet, such as Bridget Phillipson and Shabana Mahmood, have been prioritising just getting on with their jobs.

“People (men) who name themselves get named as future leaders and bigged up,” one senior female Labour MP said.

While many women Labour MPs are disheartened by the prospect of having another male leader, they are also willing to overlook this in favour of a candidate who they believe might be able to turn the party and country around.

A female Labour MP who is likely to back Streeting in a contest said: “I’d be disappointed, but you can’t ‘make’ a woman stand for the sake of it. 

“I think the question should be: why do none of the brilliant women in the PLP feel like they can’t stand?”

The MP added that they believe Streeting has gained more support from the women’s PLP in recent months, and has particularly proven that he genuinely cares about tackling violence against women and girls.

Labour MP Rachael Maskell, who would support Burnham in a contest, said: “There are so many talented women in the Labour Party, but I think we all recognise that we are in extraordinary times where we need to ensure that we are able to stabilise the party and country, and therefore unite behind someone with the breadth of experience needed to do this.

“However, we must work beyond the current situation to ensure that the next leader is a woman.”

She argued that the “culture of politics” must change and that Starmer had moved it into a “far more authoritarian model”: “Whereas the roots of our party are built on the voices of people from our communities, where all are valid, and debate is encouraged.”

Some Labour MPs who are supportive of the prime minister staying in post suggested that the prospect of replacing a man with another man, when the Tories are on their fourth female leader, would be “embarrassing”.

One female Labour MP who is backing the PM said: “It reflects really badly on us as a party… We all need to think about how we change that.”

Male Labour MPs also told PoliticsHome they found it “disappointing” and “depressing” that the party was yet to select a permanent female leader, describing the party as having “many excellent female MPs”.

A male MP on the left of the Labour Party said they “blame the Labour right”. 

“By trying to exclude the left from future contests, they’ve, by default, also blocked women and Black candidates,” he continued. 

“However, I’m firmly of the opinion that sex and race are minor factors. Kemi Badenoch is both. As is Shabana Mahmood. Race and sex are not a guarantor of being a good candidate. Your actual class politics and political culture you embrace matter far more.”

Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced a package of measures to tackle the cost of living in the House of Commons on Thursday. (Alamy)

4 min read5 hr

Addressing MPs in the House of Commons, Reeves referenced the US-Israeli war with Iran, stating she believed it had “been a mistake”, and said that she was “clear-eyed” about her duty to “support families and businesses to be responsive to a changing world”. 

In her statement, the Chancellor announced an extension of the 5p fuel duty increase freeze, stating she recognised “the pressure the war has put on fuel prices” for households and businesses. 

According to the RAC on Tuesday, petrol prices hit their highest average price since the beginning of the Iran war at 158.52p a litre – with diesel prices also extremely elevated at around 186p a litre. 

Reeves also said she was aware that the weekly food shop had become one of the “biggest worries for families”, and that the government would take action in this area. 

Food inflation sat at 3 per cent in the 12 months to April, higher than overall inflation at 2.8 per cent – with concerns more price spikes are on the horizon as disruption to global supply chains due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, creating steep increases in the price of fuel and fertiliser. 

“Last month, I met with supermarkets to urge them to do all they can to keep prices low, and today I am taking action by suspending tariffs on over 100 different foods sold in supermarkets,” said Reeves. 

“And I am clear that I expect supermarkets to pass these savings on in full to their customers.”

The Chancellor also said she was bringing forward tougher powers for the Competition and Markets Authority, warning she would “not tolerate any company exploiting the current situation to make excess profits at consumers’ expense”. 

Elsewhere, as well as an extension of the £3 bus fare cap, Reeves also announced free bus fares for 5-15 year olds during the month of August, as well as the Great British Summer Savings Scheme “to help families and support our hospitality sector”. 

Reeves said she was aware that for families it was not just about “getting by”, but also “being able to enjoy time together without worrying about the next bill” – announcing a raft of changes ahead of the school summer holidays. 

“I can today announce a temporary cut in the rate of the VAT on summer attractions from 20 per cent to 5 per cent over the summer,” said Reeves.

“This will apply to ticket prices for both adults and children, covering attractions such as fairs, theme parks, zoos, and museums.

“It will include children’s tickets for cinemas, concerts, soft play, and the theatre – and it will cut the cost of children’s meals in restaurants and cafes from 20 per cent VAT to 5 per cent, as well.”

The changes will start at the beginning of the Scottish school summer holidays at the end of June, and end on the 1st September. 

The Chancellor also said she stood “ready to act if market conditions worsen significantly later this year”, stating she had been “leading cross-government of potential future targeted and temporary support for businesses, any support will also need to be heavily targeted at firms most exposed to the crisis”. 

Responding the the Chancellor’s speech, shadow Chancellor Mel Stride said while he “welcomed” the announcement on fuel duty, “the Conservative Party has been campaigning against the fuel duty rise for months” – accusing the government of a “u-turn”. 

“That left motorists and businesses worried about even higher fuel prices in September,” said Stride. 

“It was always obvious that the fuel duty increase would need to be cancelled, obvious to everyone except the Chancellor.

“So, can I ask, why did the Chancellor fight us on fuel duty for so long? Why has she been so hell-bent on raising fuel duty during an enemy and an energy crisis?”

Stride also criticised the Chancellor for claiming the announcements were possible because “forecasts have improved”, and criticised the government for not announcing “measures to control government spending”. 

Growing concern over the impact of poor mental health on young people has led to a raft of reviews, consultations, and policy commitments. From Rt Hon Alan Milburn’s review into rising numbers of young people not in education, employment, or training, to the Government’s consultation on Growing Up Online, and the Independent Review led by Professor Sir Simon Wessley and Professor Peter Fonagy into rising rates of mental distress and neurodiversity, a common thread emerges.

Increasingly psychological distress among young people is emerging as a root cause of some of the country’s biggest social and economic challenges, including digital safety, educational attainment and workforce participation.

And while the diagnosis of the challenge is multi-faceted, the proposed solutions – while welcome – remain too narrow, lacking the urgency, ambition, and optimism the scale of the issue demands.

Expanding the number of mental health professionals in schools and Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) services, alongside increased investment in measures such as Early Support Hubs, are important first steps. But there is a risk that pressures and waiting lists are simply shifted from one part of the system to another, while many young people ‘age out’ of youth services before they can access the support they need.

For too many young people support is difficult to access, not designed with their needs in mind, and often can’t help when they first reach out – with long-term consequences for them, their families, and hard-pressed NHS teams. When 50 per cent of adult mental illnesses emerge by age 15, and 75 per cent by 24, this cannot continue.

This can be addressed with support that meets young people where they are most likely to seek help. In an increasingly digital world, many young people are turning to online spaces for support first.   

Despite growing concerns that AI chatbots can do more harm than good, one in four young people have used one for mental health support. In part because traditional services can be challenging to access, but also because they want to access support in the moment, with greater confidentiality, and in a way that feels less intimidating or judgemental.

As Chief Clinical Officer at Kooth, this trend isn’t new. For more than 20 years, Kooth has been providing NHS-funded digital mental health to young people. Through partnerships with the NHS and local authorities, around 60 per cent of 11–25-year-olds have access to our services. While Kooth is delivered online, it is grounded in human care: trained mental health practitioners and safeguarding teams providing 1:1 care and oversight that is safe, effective, and linked into local, real-world networks.

As a Consultant Clinical Psychologist, I know first-hand that mental health is messy and complex. Having educated myself on the power of AI, I have been blown away by the possibilities to not only accelerate reach and impact at a scale that would never have been possible before but to really enhance quality and safety.

But what is also clear, is that integrating AI into mental healthcare (beyond decreasing the burden of simple admin tasks) is complex and messy too – and why wouldn’t it be? If we get this right, the opportunities to use digital for good when it comes to mental health and wellbeing are unprecedented – but the level of clinical expertise and oversight required can not be overstated.

In particular, there is a growing risk of young people turning to ‘general purpose’ AI chatbots, like ChatGPT or Claude, to support their mental health, despite these tools lacking the safeguards we’d expect in other settings.  There is emerging evidence linking heavy reliance on AI chatbots with increased loneliness, particularly where human interaction is replaced by algorithm-driven responses. There are also concerns about chatbots inventing credentials, providing misleading advice and responding poorly to disclosures of suicidal thoughts.

This highlights the tension at the centre of the debate around AI, digital technology and mental health. The same technology that could expand access to support and help young people earlier, could also cause genuine harm if developed without proper oversight. The challenge now is ensuring innovation is matched by responsibility and safeguards that can respond to both current and emerging risks, and that expanding access to digital support does not mean replacing human connection with technology.

At Kooth, digital delivery is designed to widen access and remove barriers, not replace clinical expertise or real-world relationships. Independent evaluations show that young people using Kooth report reductions in distress and self-harm, while schools report greater confidence among pupils in seeking help and among teachers in knowing where to signpost support.

Yet this kind of support is still not available consistently across the country. Commissioners remain under pressure to prioritise crisis management and waiting lists, while digital access is too often treated as optional rather than essential. Addressing the mental health needs of young people is not only about reducing distress; it is about shaping life chances. It means helping young people stay in education, move into fulfilling work, and build healthier, more connected lives.

Digital access must be central to that ambition – but not an end in itself. As digital mental health services evolve, the priority must be harnessing digital tools to do what traditional services often cannot: reach underserved communities, provide support on demand, and expand equitable access to care. With the right collaboration between government, regulators, clinicians and technology providers, digital services can play a vital role in helping young people access support earlier and live healthier, happier and more productive lives.

St Stephen’s Hall | Image by: Evan Dawson / Alamy

4 min read1 hr

MPs, peers, and others who walk through St Stephen’s Hall hurry past the statues of statesmen and the grandiose portrayals of Britain’s glorious past without stopping to consider how its narrow rectangular shape has set the pattern of Westminster politics.

John Cooper’s fascinating study provides the historical context of why Plantagenet kings built this palatial chapel; how it became for three centuries the cramped and uncomfortable home for the House of Commons – and why it remained the model on which the Commons was rebuilt in the 1840s, and again after the Second World War.

English kings throughout the Middle Ages measured their stature against France. Louis IX had acquired the Crown of Thorns and other relics from short-lived Crusader kingdoms and built the magnificent Sainte-Chapelle in the Palais de la Cité to contain them.

Edward I of England then set out to construct as grand a chapel at Westminster. Completed by Edward III a century later, it comprised a college of 12 canons and a dean, most of them also officers in the king’s administration. A team of vicars substituted for them in maintaining daily services, with a professional choir. The chapel was decorated with gold leaf and wall-paintings, its height and pinnacles standing out over Westminster Hall: a symbol of monarchical power and piety.

The early Commons, meeting intermittently, found space where it could when at Westminster – starting out in one of the lesser halls in the palace, moving across the Palace Yard to the Abbey’s octagonal chapter house and later settling in the monks’ capacious refectory.

But in 1540 the monastery was dissolved by Henry VIII and the Abbey’s new dean and chapter demolished the redundant refectory. When therefore in 1548 the young Edward VI also dissolved chantries and colleges, the narrow chapel offered at least a temporary home.

Precedent and continuity trump reform in Westminster politics

The 400 members of Edward VI’s House of Commons squeezed onto the benches set up where the choir stalls had been; what had been the nave became the lobby. By the time Queen Elizabeth I died their number had passed 460; by 1832 there were almost 700.

Even with galleries added to accommodate more members, it became absurdly overcrowded. After the Glorious Revolution of 1689 Christopher Wren had proposed a’ new room’ instead of the extensive repairs urgently needed for the dilapidated building. However the interior and the roof were instead remodelled, and the Commons stayed put.

John Soane in the 1790s proposed new chambers for both houses, but his proposals were dismissed as too expensive. Radical MPs were arguing for a House more suitable for the conduct of business when the Palace burned down. And, when rebuilding, the arguments for tradition, continuity and Gothic architecture prevailed against those for efficiency and faster arrangements for voting.

Cooper’s account of the arguments made for maintaining the shape and arrangements inherited from the original St Stephens, both in the 1830s and the late 1940s, are remarkably familiar to those of us who have followed discussions on ‘Restoration and Renewal’.

Precedent and continuity trump reform in Westminster politics. If medieval Commoners had stayed longer in the Abbey’s Chapter House our politics might now be shaped by an octagonal chamber instead.

Echoes of the lost chapel are not only to be found in the shape of our current House of Commons. Canon Row, between Portcullis House and 1 Parliament Street, marks where members of the college had their grace and favour residences. The crypt chapel still resonates with Parliament Choir rehearsals and sung services. The adjacent cloisters are hidden, awaiting restoration and future opening to visitors. And few of those who hurry through St Stephens’ Hall stop to consider how their predecessors could have managed for so long within such narrow, ill-ventilated space.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire is a Liberal Democrat peer

The Lost Chapel of Westminster: How a Royal Chapel Became the House of Commons

By: John Cooper

Publisher: Apollo