Miriam Cates is a presenter on GBNews and the former MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge.

I never used to understand the appeal of the radical left.

The combination of socialist economics and a rejection of tradition is a recipe for disaster, as has been proven time and again over the last century. But last week, for a brief moment at least, I experienced a pang of revolutionary zeal and saw why the extreme left, currently embodied in Zak Polanski’s Green Party, has become so popular with young people in Britain.

This revelation was delivered to me during a Reform UK press conference, where treasury spokesman Robert Jenrick announced that his party was now committed to keeping the pensions “triple lock.” In doing so, Jenrick slammed the final nail in the coffin for the hope of state pension reform from the political right.

Should the Tories (who still support the triple lock) or Reform, or a coalition of the two win the next General Election, Britain’s young people are now condemned to pay through the nose for the retirement of the wealthiest generation in history, while simultaneously being denied the opportunity for homeownership and parenthood that their parents and grandparents took for granted.

Storming the barricades seems like a perfectly reasonable response in such circumstances.

The triple lock is a relatively new policy, introduced by the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition government in 2011. It guarantees that each year, the state pension will rise by the highest of inflation, wages or 2.5 per cent. It is a mathematical certainty that the annual increase will always exceed the average of these three metrics, and that is why since in the last 15 years, the state pension has increased by 70 per cent, twice as much as wage growth over the same period.  By 2030, the triple lock alone – not the cost of the pension itself – will add £15 billion a year to Britain’s benefit bill. And the price tag will continue to rise as the value of the state pension increases and more of Britain’s “baby boomers” reach retirement age.

The pensions triple lock is a policy that everyone in Westminster – politicians, economists, think tankers and journalists – knows is unaffordable.

Since pensions are paid from current taxation and the birth rate has been falling for 50 years, a shrinking group of working age tax payers is taxed more and more each year to fund a growing number of pensioners. The state pension is driving our economy off a cliff, yet no one in the corridors of power dares to admit it in public – though all do so in private – for fear of losing the ‘grey’ vote.

I had hoped that Reform would be different.

In so many policy areas, Nigel Farage has stood bravely against the consensus, holding his ground and winning the argument, forcing the Conservative Party (eventually) into more conservative positions. On Brexit, immigration, the ECHR and Net Zero, Farage steeled himself against establishment opprobrium, and shifted the Overton Window. The Reform leader has even had the courage to ditch some of his own popular but unsound policies – such as raising the income tax threshold to £20 000 – by explaining the need for fiscal responsibility. In recent months, both Farage and Richard Tice have hinted that the triple lock may need a rethink, rolling the pitch – or so I thought – for an honest debate. Farage is often labelled a ‘populist,’ but the British political right has been considerably strengthened by his willingness to risk being unpopular.

That is why last week’s triple lock announcement is so disappointing.

In departing from the Faragist modus operandi, Reform UK has ducked the challenge of using their unique place in British politics to shift the dial on pensions reform and force the Conservatives into a more sensible position. It was noticeable that in the press conference, both Jenrick and Farage reinforced misunderstandings about how Britain’ s state pension is funded, saying that retirees have ‘paid into’ their pension, even though this is untrue. National Insurance payments are not saved for an individual; NI is a tax that is used to cover the cost of current public spending. The average pensioner receives around 25 per cent more from the state than they contributed in tax and NI. This popular myth – that pensioners receive their pensions from a ‘pot’ with their name on it – is one of the major political barriers to reform and politicians ought to take every opportunity to correct rather than perpetuate the misconception.

Reform (and the Conservatives) also claim that the triple lock can be afforded by cutting spending on foreigners and the workless. But our national finances are in such a perilous state that we must do everything at once. State pension expenditure has reached £150 billion a year; annual spending on asylum hotels (which should of course be stopped) sits at just £2 billion. Universal Credit claims by households including at least one foreign national amount to less than £15 billion a year. It is not possible to reduce spending enough without addressing the burgeoning cost of the state pension.

Supporters argue that Reform’s commitment to the triple lock is born of pragmatism, and that the Party must bolster its position among older voters. Pragmatic it may be, courageous it is not. And it is certainly not in the national interest.

Yet judging by the arguments raging online and in the media this week, it is clear that many on the right see the triple lock and the state pension as untouchable foundations of government policy. Three main arguments are being made by so-called conservatives in favour of the status quo, none of which stand up to scrutiny.

Firstly, opponents to pension reform argue that a generous state pension is part of the social contract and so, even though the state pension is technically not a contributory scheme, it would be immoral for the government to change the terms. But healthcare and unemployment benefits are also part of our social contract, and we all recognise that it is up to the government of the day to set the level of NHS spending and welfare eligibility criteria based on what is sensible and affordable. When the current state pension was introduced, life expectancy was 65 and the birth rate was high enough to sustain our native population. In all other areas of policy making we recognise that times have changed; why ring fence the state pension?

Secondly, supporters of the non-means tested state pension claim that those who paid tax throughout their working lives are entitled to this state handout because of their financial contribution. But by that logic, all working age taxpayers should be allowed to claim Universal Credit. The welfare state is based on the understanding that high earners pay a lot of tax and at the same time are not entitled to benefits. It’s unclear why this should only apply to those under the age of 67.

Lastly, it is argued that pensioners deserve a well-earned and comfortable retirement as a reward for their working life. I have no doubt that most of Britain’s current retirees have indeed worked hard. But no generation has ever before – or will again – enjoy such lengthy and wealthy retirements, benefitting as they have from improved healthcare and macroeconomic policies that saw asset prices rocket. Are Boomers more deserving than, say, the silent generation who fought the Second World War, or the Edwardians who endured the Great War, and the Spanish Flu? Of course we shouldn’t begrudge anyone a long and happy retirement, but we must also recognise that the extraordinarily advantageous circumstances of many current retirees owes more to luck than virtue.

It’s as if a form of wilful blindness has taken hold of some on the right, preventing them from seeing the state pension for what it has become – a universal basic income for those over a certain age.

Apparently without embarrassment, some conservatives complain that Britain’s benefit system is increasingly socialist – with growing expenditure on asylum seekers and those who don’t want to work – while being unwilling to contemplate reform to our most socialist benefit of all; the state pension. The same people who argue that disability benefits should only go to those who really need them seem remarkably comfortable with millionaires (one in four of today’s pensioners) and higher rate tax payers (three million retirees by the end of next year) receiving a state pension. Britain’s pension system now functions as a cash transfer from poorer young to wealthier old, in a reverse Robin Hood phenomenon that has become known online as ‘Boomer Communism’.

The delusion is so potent that it has led some to claim that those calling for pension spending restraint are ‘far left’. We really are flying upside down.

Is it any wonder Britain’s young people are so demoralised? My eldest son turns 18 this year and,  once he enters the workplace, a large proportion of the tax he pays will fund an income not just for poor pensioners, but for many who don’t need the money and are sitting on unearned asset wealth that he can never hope to acquire. If this is ‘capitalism’ then there are no prizes for guessing why young people might reject it.

In their press conference, the Reform Party pointed to polling that shows young people support the triple lock. But young people also support puppies and kittens; it doesn’t mean it will be a deciding issue for them at an election. And both Farage and Jenrick had some choice words about the apparently work-shy young, which is a bit rich considering they are the people who are being forced to fund a state pension that will be long gone by the time they reach old age.

Campaigning for economic reform should not be the preserve of the radical left.

There is a compelling conservative argument for addressing generational inequality, based on responsibility, opportunity and the virtue of living within our means. It is notable that Britain’s Reform Party is considerably less popular with young voters than their European counterparts. France’s Rassemblement Nationale and Germany’s AfD have attracted the support of around 30 per cent of young people in their respective nations; just 8 per cent of Britain’s youth say they will vote for Farage’s party.

Perhaps this is because Reform has leaned into Brexit and immigration, rather than issues of identity, ethnicity and economic inequality which drive concern among the young. Interestingly the newest entrant on the right – Rupert Lowe’s Restore Party – is deliberately directing its messaging at younger voters and calling on grandparents to make sacrifices for their grandchildren. Time will tell whether Restore can land their arguments with enough voters of all ages to make a difference.

Time is running out.

The welfare bill (of which around one half is the state pension) has now exceeded income tax receipts. Of course the very poor – of all ages – must be protected. But in refusing to address the burgeoning cost of state pensions, we are enriching the old at the expense of the young and condemning our economy to crisis. If that doesn’t radicalise you, nothing will.

Or perhaps you think we can just let the young eat cake.

The AA have decided to enter the war on disabled people, for some reason. The president of the car insurance firm, Edmund King, has accused disabled people of ‘misusing’ blue badges. And of course, the mainstream media were frothing at the mouth.

The Sun went with:

Number of blue badge holders hits record high amid calls for crackdown on cheats.

The Mail specifically had to mention disability:

One in TWENTY drivers now have disability blue badge as councils urged to crack down on misuse.

And The Telegraph went with:

Fraud fears as one in 20 holds blue badge.

The AA warns that up to a fifth of the permits are being misused.

The Independent is a funny one because it originally went with:

Call for blue badge misuse crackdown as one in 20 hold ‘lifeline parking permit.

But it changed the headline to:

Call for blue badge crackdown amid fears of fake and stolen permits.

The AA gleefully pile on disabled people

The story itself, is actually nothing to do with ‘benefit cheats” or ‘disability fakers, but why let that get in the way of a good pile on disabled people. It was instead about stats from the Department for Transport showing there are now 3.07 million blue badges in circulation in England. This means just 5% of the population are blue badge holders.

But, despite it being the Easter bank holiday weekend, the media didn’t miss a chance to shit all over disabled people again. The stats were apparently analysed by the Press Association, which is how the story made its way to all the shitrags.

The PA couldn’t just stick to facts, as that wouldn’t make a very clickbaity story. So they had to instead twist how small a portion of the country have a blue badge. Because let’s be honest, 1 in 20 sounds much more significant than just 5%. And it’s much easier to set doubt in people’s minds that 1 in 20 people actually need a blue badge.

To further sow the seeds of doubt the story also points out that in 2019 the eligibility criteria for blue badges changed. Where previously only those with visible disabilities qualified, now it’s open to all disabilities.

What’s missing from this of course though is that you have to also qualify for a disability benefit such as PIP, which requires horrendous amounts of evidence. You can’t just say you have a disability and get a blue badge.

The AA responds, for some reason

But of course it didn’t end there, they had to explicitly state that people were faking, and call in an ‘expert’ to back them up. This being the president of the AA. Even though the AA has got fuck all to do with blue badges or accessible transport.

Edmund King from the AA said:

The blue badge scheme is a mobility lifeline for millions of legitimate users and their families.

Our concern is not the absolute number of badges issued but the estimates that up to one in five badges may be used by someone other than the holder or authorised user. .

Advertisement

The thing is, the Department for Transport stats don’t mention blue badge fraud. And the only actual source for this ‘1 in 5’ figure are all of the articles quoting King on it. The only other reference before him is an Essex County Council blue badge investigations officer, who also doesn’t give a source.

It should be absolutely mindblowing that every single mainstream news outlet published this stat without verifying it, but then that wouldn’t suit the agenda.

As the PA has rightly pointed out, the department which records blue badge fraud doesn’t even exist anymore. The Fraud Authority was shut down in 2011. But that didn’t stop them using the 15 year old stat that blue badge fraud apparently costs £46 million per year.

Blue badge fraud can’t have been that much of a concern to the government though, if they literally closed down the department that investigates it.

Deserving vs undeserving disabled

This is bad enough, but then King makes it all even worse:

We would welcome a crackdown on illegitimate use of badges to safeguard the deserving users.

There it is, that distinction between who really needs support and who’s obviously just faking it.

Because as it always comes down to, who gets to decide which disabled people are ‘deserving’? How are we deciding that? Dunk them in a river and if they float they’re disabled? Drop them and see if they land butter side up?

And why does a president of a car insurance company get to have any say in that?

In the current climate though, it’s not hard to deduce what’s meant by ‘deserving’ though. The very narrow view of disability that almost definitely means you use a wheelchair and need constant care. If you can go out and enjoy your life you’re not disabled enough, despite blue badges being a big reason so many disabled people can get out.

It’s also not a stretch to assume these articles are also part of the recent trend of hating people with neurodivergent and mental health conditions. Which are coincidentally happening whilst the government is tryiing (and failing) to prove these conditions are over diagnosed so they can cut benefits.

The timing is also not a coincidence, as from this week new claimants of Universal Credit who can’t work will have their benefit halved. And Motability just announced that disabled drivers will have their mileage allowance halved.

Let disabled people live their fucking lives

The government can claim it wants to get disabled people into work all it wants, but attempted PIP cuts, Motability reforms and Access to Work being slashed say otherwise. If they truly cared about supporting disabled people the press wouldn’t be being used to demonise us every fucking day.

More than anything, seeing constant stories about disabled fraudsters is fucking exhausting. Disabled people are tired of being used as the scapegoats for failing governments which have allowed billionaires to destroy this country.

We don’t want thousands in taxpayer benefits, ‘motability mercedes,’ or free parking, we just want to fucking lives our lives.

Featured image via the Canary

Sir John, now Lord, Redwood is a former MP for Wokingham and a former Secretary of State for Wales.

Labour think the Prime Minister is having a good war. If only.

For 48 hours he denied the US President use of US bases on UK territory. This angered the President and kept the UK out of the crucial discussions of what if anything to do about Iran and her proxies. Then the PM did a U turn and allowed their use. He awoke to the uncomfortable fact that whilst he might think he could keep us out of harm’s way by distancing us from the US, Iran saw it differently and attacked UK personnel and assets in the Middle East anyway.

The UK had regardless been actively indecisive before the war started.

The governmentdid reinforce the Cyprus base and send more warplanes there, whilst failing to send a destroyer to give the base better air cover. At the same time inexplicably the UK decommissioned its last destroyer in Bahrain and recalled our last minesweeper from the Gulf. Our minesweeper capability had been an important part of allied planning to keep shipping lanes open in a dangerous part of the seas. It was also a defensive, not an aggressive naval presence which should have been to the PM ‘s lawyerly liking.

The PM decided it was popular to disagree with President Trump , but not popular to undermine the US defence relationship to lose US force to help protect us. The PM decided some war to be called defensive was fine, but more war to pre-empt or disable Iran was not fine. He hoped fence sitting would let him control both sides. Instead it impaled him painfully on his own incompetence.

These nuances got blown away as the President took a simple view. You either fully support them as an ally, or you are a problem to be criticised and disadvantaged. The US relationship was already much damaged by the Mandelson appointment. Starmer’s choice of Ambassador took a memory trip to Epstein land into the Oval office whenever he went to meetings there.

The problem the PM faces is what now happens to the UK and the economy.

Seen by Iran, the Houthis and Hezbollah as an enemy our ships and people are at risk despite Starmer’s legalistic positioning. The US is not listening to advice from the UK or EU on the legal and practical limits to bombing. The UK is going to suffer from the stop on Gulf  trade and the serious damage to Middle Eastern oil, gas , refined products and chemicals output.

The Prime Minister tries to portray an image of calm, but to many of us it looks like ignorant inaction, fearing the reality of energy and food shortages and higher prices.

If the US, Israel and Iran continue this war, energy, fertiliser, microprocessors and food are going to get scarcer and prices will rise faster. Central Banks may add to the deflationary impact of high energy costs, tipping many countries into recession. They have a habit of responding to supply shock price rises with recession inducing higher interest rates. The Bank of England regularly goes on the hunt to create a downturn. Look at 1974, 1979, 1989, 2008, 2022.

The UK government is driving through policies which are destined to make it more difficult for the UK to avoid one of the worst outcomes, as forecast by the OECD. Its stubborn refusal to extract more of our own oil and gas makes us more dependent on dear and scarce imports. Its high energy costs have closed two of our six refineries already and a big part of our chemical industry. The UK will have to  pay penal prices to buy in what is needed through imports and will have to cut back on consumption.

Net zero zealotry means shortages and rationing by price or law beckon.

The idiotic policy of  paying farmers grants to wild their land or to convert it to solar farms will reduce our proportion of home grown food just as food gets scarcer and dearer on world markets. Farmers are replacing crops with wild flowers and Chinese solar panels. Banning new petrol car production will lead to nearly new petrol car imports and shortages.

The government this summer will be dragged into bigger subsidies to those on benefits to offset price pressures on energy and food. This will swell borrowing , keeping interest rates and mortgages higher for longer. It may lead to yet higher taxes on those who do have jobs or run businesses, in another bout of unfairness and anti business policy making.

The correct response to a supply collapse from restricted imports must be an urgent expansion of home production. So lift the bans on new oil and gas, on petrol car manufacture, on new building projects. Remove carbon taxes and cut tax on energy.  Spend farm grants on promoting more home grown food. Refine more oil, make more fertiliser, produce more chemicals at home.

Why is this government so anti jobs and pro putting more people on benefits? Why does it want to close most high energy using  businesses to rely on imports? Why does it think more EU laws and taxes will bring anything other than more misery and slower growth?

Being the Benefits party, not the Labour party is the last thing we need. Meanwhile the PM poses for the cameras and jets around the world burning scarce fuel. He conjures fantasy coalitions of the willing to offer non-existent forces to keep a peace the combatants have not called. The PM wants international courts and the UN to dictate outcomes which usually turn out to be harmful to the UK.

The government’s policy to demand de-escalation of this bad war is completely detached from reality.

The PM says this but is not negotiating with the warring countries and terrorist groups who could bring it about. We all want an end to the war, Prime Minister. We also want an end to terrorist attacks on people and shipping.

The question is what are you going to do to help?

It seems six months really does make a difference. Not huge, but a difference.

At Conservative Party Conference last year the quiet whisperings were that having taken a beating in local elections in 2025, the prospects of another one in 2026 were high. One party insider suggested to me, then, that “the numbers are really awful“. This of course was three days before Kemi Badenoch’s speech which signalled a change in her confidence and perceptions of her determination which those watching surely saw, as did Robert Jenrick for whom May 2026 and the prospect of a bad showing for the Tories held the possibility of a jumping off point for a leadership bid.

We now know it was about this time he started talking privately with Reform UK.

With his sacking and then defection, the threat of an internal coup has drastically reduced – our latest shadow cabinet league table shows how far Badenoch has come since – and she is now by far the least unpopular (to be accurate about how that number works) party leader overall. So this set of elections on May the 7th are less dangerous for her, but still potentially tough for the Conservative Party.

Of course Reform have vowed that they’ll show the Tories to have “ceased to exist as a national party”, all part of their perfectly legitimate but possibly less credible ‘the Conservatives are dead’ strategy. Lord Ashcroft’s latest polling, oft disputed by Reform, suggests the numbers are changing nationally too.

This time last year we asked members to respond on a possible out come of May 2025 local elections and the predictions were accurately dire. 

This time, ahead of the May 2026 elections, it’s not quite the same.

There’s still a not insignificant 36.4 per cent that think the Tories will lose lots of seats, once again damaging the party on the ground but 60.3% think the results will be mixed with loses in some areas but gains in others. No surprise that only 2.1 percent think the Conservatives will win lots of seats. These results are about confounding only the worst predictions, accepting the brand is still difficult to sell less than two years after the huge General Election defeat, but survivable if Labour suffer a noticeable collapse in these elections.

The word from many of the more senior Conservative Party officials campaigning across the country is that in some areas the loses could be pretty bad, but in others – London gets mentioned a lot – there could be brighter news. There is also an anticipation that tactical voting and smaller margins of victory could throw out some unexpected results both good and bad.

Reform remain the biggest threat in the eyes of our survey panel.

It’s therefore no surprise to see that Reform are seen by over half of responders as the biggest threat. However talking to Conservative campaigners up and down the country, there are places where Reform is not in play, but the threat is the Liberal Democrats, highlighted in that 25.6 per cent figure.

The more observant readers will note there are Welsh Senedd elections and elections to the Scottish Parliament, so both the SNP featured in this question for our survey at 1.3 per cent and Plaid Cymru at 0.6 per cent. Of course in both those elections it is likely that Reform are seen by our responders as the bigger threat to Tories standing, and would be included in the 51.1 per cent figure. However one Scottish newspaper suggests things are not going quite to plan for Reform in Scotland.

5 per cent of responders had no election in their area.

Reform UK will have a decent night in May, there seems little doubt of that, but there are signs it may not be the rout they wanted and have insisted is inevitable.

Figures compiled by Animal Aid show that 67 horses have died racing at the festival since the year 2000, with 17 horses dying after racing in the Grand National.

The League has criticised the British Horseracing Authority and Jockey Club for prioritising gambling profits over the lives of horses.

Emma Slawinski, League Against Cruel Sports chief executive, said: “We are calling on the public and businesses to boycott the Aintree Festival and Grand National, to avoid betting on the races and to switch off the ITV Coverage and advertising which glosses over the cruelty.

“The government needs to step in and ensure the welfare of the horses is put before the profits of gambling companies and the horse racing industry.

The British Horseracing Authority is failing the horses used in racing and the death toll keeps on rising every year – I would be delighted but very surprised if we won’t be reporting on more deaths over the next three days of the festival.

“Horses will be sacrificed for people’s entertainment, something that should repel a nation of animal lovers.”

At last year’s festival, Willy De Houelle died on the first day of racing, followed by Celebre D’Allen who died two days after competing in the Grand National.

The League is also calling for the use of the whip to be banned in horse racing, something that Sweden implemented in 2022 over concerns for horse welfare.

Emma added: “There needs to be a ban on the whip which is being cruelly used to inflict pain and push horses beyond their capabilities.

“Horses are being raced to their deaths – the government needs to step in and ensure the welfare of horses becomes the number one priority and to end the sickening death toll which grows ever higher each year the Aintree Festival is held.

“Action needs to be taken to stop the British Horseracing Authority and the festival organisers from putting gambling profits before the welfare of the horses.”

(Credit: Adobe Stock)

A broader definition of security

With the London Defence Conference taking place in April, attention is turning to how the United Kingdom and its allies can strengthen “readiness” for threats in an increasingly dangerous world. Much of the focus is on military spending, set against a backdrop of new Nato targets, with Allies now aiming to spend 3.5 per cent of GDP on military capability and operations.

But of equal importance, Nato Allies have also agreed that up to 1.5 per cent of GDP should go on defence – and security-related spending, including resilience and preparedness – so countries can better withstand and recover from shocks that can disrupt everyday life. Cyber-attacks, pandemics, infrastructure sabotage, and supply chain disruption, among other threats, can all destabilise a country without a shot being fired. The 1.5 per cent target reflects a simple shift – that security today extends far beyond military strength and requires preparing for disruption across society.

Biological threats and national risk

Biological threats are perhaps the clearest example of this. Covid-19 caused profound loss of life, shut down economies and overwhelmed health systems, leaving impacts on societies and public services still felt today.

That experience has fundamentally shaped how the government now assesses risk. The UK’s National Risk Register continues to rank pandemics among the most serious threats facing the country, with up to a one in four chance of another within the next five years.

Biological threats are also not limited to naturally occurring outbreaks. Advances in biotechnology – combined with rapid progress in artificial intelligence and wider access to scientific knowledge – are making it easier to manipulate pathogens. This raises the stakes, increasing the risk of both deliberate misuse by hostile actors and accidental incidents. The Risk Register also ranks large-scale chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) attacks among those with the highest potential impact.

Biological threat preparedness is no longer only a health issue – it is a national security concern with significant societal and economic implications. Nato’s resilience benchmark offers a real opportunity to act on that shift in thinking. But whether it delivers will depend on how it is implemented.

Making the 1.5 per cent target count

There is an obvious risk. At a time of tight public finances, the easiest way to meet the 1.5 per cent target would be to re-label existing spending. While investment in healthcare, infrastructure and energy is vital, it is not the same as building resilience in the way Nato intends. Without a clear, shared definition of what qualifies as resilience spending – and without mechanisms to track new versus existing investment – the target risks becoming an exercise in accounting rather than a catalyst for capability.

Preparing for biological threats requires sustained, targeted investment – stockpiling vaccines and treatments, maintaining manufacturing capacity, strengthening disease surveillance and prioritising research and development. In many countries, these capabilities remain spread across government without clear coordination or a long-term structure, making it harder to respond quickly and effectively when the next crisis hits.

The UK has taken important steps. The government’s Biological Security Strategy and the work of the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) have strengthened understanding of the threat and improved capability, with UKHSA playing a central role in preparedness and response. The next step is to build on that progress with a clearer view of what is being invested – and whether it matches the scale of the risk.

Other countries offer useful examples. In the United States, long-term investment in medical countermeasures is coordinated through a cross-government framework, supported by regular congressional scrutiny and multi-year planning. The Public Health Emergency Medical Countermeasures Enterprise (PHEMCE), for example, sets out a multi-year strategy covering everything from R&D through to procurement and stockpiling – identifying priorities and capability gaps over time. Canada also has an effective model: government makes committed annual investments in advanced strategic stockpiling of medical countermeasures that are closely coordinated across the country’s public health and defence authorities.

This provides clearer demand signals, supports manufacturing capacity, and allows policymakers to track progress. Across Nato, approaches remain varied, although efforts such as the European Union’s Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Authority are beginning to introduce more structure.

In the UK, Parliament has a clearer view of the risks, but there is an opportunity to provide greater visibility on what is being spent to address them. Regular and more detailed cross-government reporting could provide a clearer picture of investment, capability gaps and progress over time. This would not only strengthen scrutiny, but help ensure that funding decisions are aligned with the highest-impact risks.

Nato’s 1.5 per cent benchmark is a step forward. But on its own, it is unlikely to shift approaches to resilience spending. Without clearer definitions, stronger accountability, and a focus on building tangible capabilities, it risks reinforcing existing patterns rather than changing them.

If it is implemented well, however, it could mark the beginning of a more strategic approach to national resilience – one that recognises biological threats as central to security in the 21^st century.

The risks are well understood. The challenge now is to ensure that policy and investment keep pace. Because while the 3.5 per ecnt prepares us for war, the 1.5 per cent must prepare us for everything else.

For further material on strengthening biosecurity and national resilience, visit

www.emergentbiosolutions.com or contact Ask Eirik Storsve, Senior Director, International Government Affairs, Emergent BioSolutions on [email protected].

Ask Eirik Storsve

Ask Eirik Storsve is the Sr. Director, Head of International Government Affairs at Emergent, a global life sciences company that develops and manufactures medical countermeasures for some of society’s most pressing biological threats. Ask Eirik is a member of the EU HERA Industry Cooperation Forum and the European Confederation of Pharmaceutical Entrepreneurs’ Health Crisis Management & Preparedness Steering Group. Ask Eirik brings years of international policy development experience from the European and Norwegian Parliaments and work with Afghan refugees in Pakistan and Afghanistan to his international work at Emergent.

Concept illustration of the West Yorkshire Mass Transit scheme (Credit: West Yorkshire Combined Authority)

3 min read12 min

The Labour mayor of West Yorkshire has repeatedly promised to get “spades in the ground” by 2028. But the project’s timeline was delayed following a September 2025 audit by the Cabinet Office and Treasury.  

The confidential ‘peer review’, obtained by The House magazine, warned that the mass transit scheme was being driven by a “political agenda rather than a recognised programmatic approach”.

It added that “options appraisal for investment, robust project planning and risk management are critical ingredients for successful delivery and should not be compromised for unrealistic milestones”.

There was a risk of “political embarrassment”, it cautioned, “if there was a large disconnect between a lauded ‘spades in the ground’ date and the start of actual work,” and it said that money could be wasted: “The risk of nugatory spend is high.”

The review, conducted by the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (NISTA), also found that not enough work had been done to prove why the scheme needed trams rather than buses.

The paper’s authors were “concerned” about the West Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority’s (WYCA) “lack of unbiased thinking” on this question, adding: “There is a need to build the case for trams which has not been completed. 

“This is particularly important because the likely cost of a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) mode is significantly less than for trams and the BRT benefits:cost ratio is significantly better.”

Following the review, mass transit services have been delayed from the mid-2030s to the late 2030s. WYCA has said spades will still go in the ground in 2028, but for “preparatory” works rather than laying tracks. 

A WYCA spokesperson said: “Beginning preparatory construction works by 2028 has been an ambition for the combined authority for some time because the people of West Yorkshire have waited long enough for this investment…

“NISTA’s predecessor body, the National Infrastructure Commission, set out clearly in 2023 that Leeds needs a tram. A review at this stage of a project of this scale is completely normal, and the majority of its recommendations have already been addressed by the combined authority.” 

The Department for Transport said the government “fully supports Mayor Brabin’s ambitions for a world-class mass transit system for West Yorkshire”, adding: “We look forward to receiving West Yorkshire Combined Authority’s initial business case for the project later this year.”

A feature on the West Yorkshire Mass Transit project will be published in the next edition of The House magazine and online next week.