The Warm Homes Plan (WHP) shifts from a ‘fabric first’ towards a ‘heat pump first’ approach. Combined with the decision to end the Energy Company Obligation, which had a fabric-first approach, more homeowners will be encouraged to install low–carbon heating technologies.

But, are the right technologies being supported, and will rural households have access to the support needed to decarbonise their heating fairly and affordably?

While heat pumps will undoubt­edly play an important role in many homes, there is no single solution that fits the diverse realities of the UK’s rural housing stock. Many rural homes are older, harder‑to‑treat, and face significant challenges with insulation, electricity supply, and instal­lation. For these households, which often face higher levels of fuel poverty, mandating only electric solutions risks imposing high upfront and running costs, substantial disruption, and, ultimately, limited consumer uptake.

For rural MPs, the WHP must be read along­side the consultation on Exploring the Role of Alternative Clean Heating Solutions which closes on 10th February. This seeks to identify alternatives for the estimated 20 per cent of homes the government recognises might not be suitable for heat pumps.

Calor welcomes the government’s ambition and the prin­ciple of universal access outlined in the WHP. However, the plan lacks a strategic approach for rural homes as many of the technologies currently supported might not be suitable, locking them out of schemes. Fairness and consumer choice for rural households must sit at the heart of policy design.

 This means ensuring that Renewable Liquid Gases (RLGs) – such as BioLPG – are fully taken forward in the government’s heat strategy.

BioLPG is already available in the UK and is fully compatible with existing heating systems, and can cut carbon emissions immediately. BioLPG, offers up to 90 per cent carbon savings compared to conventional LPG, while producing dramatically lower particulate and NOx emissions than heating oil.

Heat pumps can cost upwards of £12,000 to install in off‑grid homes, even before fabric improvements are considered. The bill for some homes can be considerably higher. In contrast, switching to BioLPG requires no disruption, protects consumer choice, and ensures a just transition for house­holds that cannot easily electrify.

The consultation rightly acknowledges the potential of renewable liquid fuels. An ambi­tious and well‑designed Renewable Liquid Heating Fuel Obligation, similar to that already deployed in the transport sector, would unlock investment, give certainty to producers, and accelerate supply of RLGs at scale. It is vital the government continues its dialogue with industry to bring forward an obligation as this would enable rural households to transition quickly and affordably.

As the UK shapes its future heat policy, the priority must be a prag­matic, consumer‑led pathway that delivers emissions reduction while safeguarding rural communities. Heat pumps have an important role to play, but they are not the only answer. RLGs present a ready‑made, cost‑effective and low‑carbon solution that can work alongside electrification – not in competition with it.

If the WHP is to properly deliver for rural communities, RLGs like BioLPG must be given the full policy recognition they deserve.

NDA group apprentices attend the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Apprenticeships Parliamentary Fair.

5 min read21 min

Over the past month, the NDA group has played a central role at two key events in Parliament, the NIA’s Nuclear Week in Parliament, and the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Apprenticeships Parliamentary Fair.

Both events were an opportunity to showcase the nuclear industry’s contribution to jobs, growth and energy security across the UK, and engage with parliamentarians and industry figures. 

The NDA group, responsible for safely decommissioning the nation’s earliest nuclear sites, played a prominent role in demonstrating how decommissioning is not the end of the nuclear story, but a vital enabler of the UK’s wider nuclear ambitions.

From securing legacy facilities and safely managing nuclear waste, through to unlocking opportunities to restore land for future beneficial use, the group is increasingly trusted to do more. In the coming years, this will also include taking on decommissioning of the UK’s seven Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor stations following defueling, reflecting the breadth of expertise within the group.

The NDA group, comprising Sellafield Ltd, Nuclear Restoration Services (NRS), Nuclear Waste Services (NWS), and Nuclear Transport Solutions (NTS), oversees one of the world’s most important environmental restoration programmes. It employs 19,000 people directly – equating to 32% of the UK’s civil nuclear sector – and supports over 40,000 more jobs through its supply chain, making it central to unlocking further economic growth.

Alongside the development of the existing workforce and bringing in experienced professionals with transferable skills from other sectors, key to sustaining progress in both decommissioning and the wider civil nuclear sector is the prioritisation of early careers. As the UK nuclear workforce is set to expand, sector-wide collaboration through the National Nuclear Skills Plan has underpinned this, with NDA subsidiary Energus providing graduates and apprentices to partner organisations.

The NDA group is currently marking National Apprenticeship Week, celebrating how apprenticeships deliver long-term skills, rewarding career routes and opportunity for communities surrounding NDA sites.

At the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Apprenticeships Parliamentary Fair, NDA group apprentices shared their journeys with parliamentarians. Grace Ormesher-Southall, a fourth-year Sellafield Design Degree Apprentice, spoke highly of her time at Sellafield, saying: “I’ve had the opportunity to complete work across civil engineering, structural calculations, architectural work, project management, and CAD design.” She also reflected that she has “enjoyed playing an active role in delivering complex projects that contribute directly to Sellafield’s mission”, sentiment shared by graduates across the organisation.

With 90% of NDA group apprentices successfully securing a role within the group at the end of their scheme, apprentices are well placed to go on and work in the sector, building skills and industry in their local communities and unlocking the growth this brings.

There are also 400 apprentices set to join the group this year, who will continue to play a crucial role in delivering the NDA’s mission on behalf of the UK.

Nationally, the number of those beginning their apprenticeship schemes has risen by nearly 8% this year, driven by increases in government funding and a growing number of roles.

Minister for Skills, Baroness Jacqui Smith, said:

“Nuclear decommissioning is creating exactly the kind of skilled, well-paid careers we need more of in this country – and these jobs are being built in communities that have long been the backbone of British industry.

“This government is investing in the workforce of the future to give employers greater flexibility to train the next generation.

“By supporting high-quality apprenticeships and skills programmes, we are helping people into good jobs while strengthening the industries our economy depends on.”

Early careers were also front and centre at Nuclear Week in Parliament’s Skills and Apprenticeships Fair, hosted by Lizzi Collinge MP in January. At the event, 11 NDA group apprentices from sites across the UK again engaged with MPs to share first-hand the work they are delivering, and the skills they are gaining from their participation in the NDA group’s extensive apprenticeship programme.

Speaking at the event, Keely Salter, an NRS Health Physics Apprentice and the National Skills Academy for Nuclear (NSAN) Apprentice of the Year 2025, said her apprenticeship had helped her develop key skills to advance her career “through learning from experienced members of the team and other on‑site staff.” She added that an apprenticeship was “an environment where learning never stops” – something she hopes to share with others in her work promoting nuclear industry opportunities to local schools.

Keely is one of 1,100 apprentices and graduates currently working within the NDA group, which sees investment into such programmes as central to the delivery of its mission. With £55 million of investment into early careers each year, the group is helping grow a nuclear workforce to enable the government’s ambitions for cheap, clean, homegrown energy. In addition to early careers programmes, the NDA sponsors 150 PhD students and five post-doctoral researchers, developing advanced skills to tackle its unique and complex engineering and environmental challenges.

For more information on apprenticeships in the NDA group, visit: Early careers – The NDA group

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.

When it rains, it pours, as they say – and this February, it looks like there’s going to be a fair amount of pouring.

With rain expected most of this month (at the time of writing), the outlook is looking pretty dreary for the next few weeks – but fear not, there are things you can certainly do (and buy) to help make it feel a lot less miserable.

From water-repelling bags to wellies to waterproof parkas, here are some of the best, if not most exciting, buys to help you brave the elements and stay comfortably dry in this terribly British weather….

1. ‘I’m sorry.’

FG Trade via Getty Images

2. ‘I was in survival mode.’

3. ‘I’m really proud of you.’

MoMo Productions via Getty Images

4. ‘Your life path is different than mine, but I support you.’

5. ‘Do you want advice, or would you prefer for me to listen?’

Westend61 via Getty Images

6. ‘I’m still here for you.’

Lazarus didn’t have a better revival, if you are in the Labour Party.

One day after the resignation of his Chief of Staff, the ‘brains of the operation’, Mandelson protogé and eventual sacrificial lamb, Morgan McSweeney, the man who relied so heavily upon him was on the ropes. Ugly for Starmer was the Monday mood in Westminster, and yet the coup that couldn’t deliver the coup de grace announced itself in Edinburgh.

It’s a really heartwarming thing to see so many people that you know have doubts, like you, about Starmer’s ability to do the job, suddenly spontaneously express their strong conviction that this ‘man of integrity’ in his borrowed suit and glasses is the man to lead them. Almost as if it was co-ordinated, by his allies.

The Cabinet had spent the middle of the day with their tanks strangely quiet, their ranks confined to barracks, waiting to see which way the wind blew, as Kemi Badenoch stalked the skies, and Sky, eager to add another ‘kill’ to the fuselage of her fighter plane. But despite Anas Sawar firing the opening salvos, battle did not commence.

And then arose a faintly ‘saintly’ Sir Keir from a meeting of the PLP. A shame the ‘best speech of his life’ took place behind closed doors, rather than the nasal Nightol he usually serves up in public, and suddenly all is well in the best of all possible Labour worlds. They’ve really turned the corner. The leopard has abandoned spots as yesterday’s fashion.

The truth is the PM ‘saved the day’, or rather his bacon, and will be back at the despatch box this afternoon, where the woman he once felt able to write off will no doubt be right up in his face.

Actually Starmer has merely bought time. How long? Probably the length of an HMRC tax investigation, or May.

I’m old enough to remember when, having survived Conference 2025 with aplomb, we warned that with Robert Jenrick in the Party (he was actually already in Reform – he just hadn’t told anyone yet) that May 2026 was the moment Kemi was most vulnerable.

However with a sustained personal, if not party, revival and Robert Jenrick actually gone that threat has not only reduced substantially, it’s flipped onto a Labour leader who once, filled with confidence, liked to dangle that threat over the Conservative leaders head at PMQs. I doubt he’d risk that today.

One wonders, since he’s expressed his full confidence in so many people shortly before they’ve fallen – or been thrown- under a bus, if he’s confident in himself? The illusion of the big Starmer reset being real, rather than him being taken hostage by his Cabinet and his party – will unravel as he is forced, sans Morgan, to ‘talk left and govern lefter’.

But I have a doubt? What’s Kemi Badenoch’s play here?

She’s gunning for the PM, and with a substantial stack of ammunition on his poor judgement over Mandelson, taking the risk with national security by making him Ambassador to Washington, she’s harried him and will continue to with relentless accuracy. There’s lots more to come out, even today.

But do the Conservatives, who shied from a leadership challenge in the last nineteen months for the very same reasons Labour have for the moment, really want Starmer out?

Strategically it’s a tricky question. What’s the end game we are after? Almost all potential replacements for our adenoidal overlord are flawed in ways that will either see them unable to win over the membership of the Labour party or those that can run a government so akin to socialism the country and economy implode further and faster than Keir and Rachel have delivered already.

ConservativeHome columnist Miriam Cates pushed at this in her role as GBNews presenter when interviewing Kemi this week. She asked the Conservative leader who she thought could fill Starmer’s shoes, and predictably but effectively Kemi said “me”.

Right so we get, I even fully support, that aim. Kemi for PM and all that. But we’re not there yet. The mission seemed to be ‘Operation Remove Starmer’ not Operation General Election. Indeed, Kemi herself has said some while back that Labour are not under any obligation to call an election until 2029 and with as majority their size they won’t. Angela Rayner made much of the fact that every new Conservative Prime Minister should have sought a fresh mandate from the people. She’d be reminded of that if she won any race.

Right now it will be a Labour somebody who’d replace Starmer.  The Reign of Rayner? Downing Streeting? back on the Milibandwagon? Engineering the destabilising impact on the country of a leadership contest mid term, a process the Conservatives now know is downright toxic to voters and have for that reason avoided having their own repeat, might look a little off. Quite a lot off actually.

And whilst they continue to crow – and I don’t remotely blame them – about poll leads, and uniparties, and bang on about Bangor, Reform, even with Farage performatively putting his party on an ‘election war footing’ are no more ready than the Conservatives to actually fight one right now. And our poll numbers still show, that an increasingly popular Kemi can’t save the Conservative brand alone.

Take candidate selection processes as just one example of why Reform and the Conservatives are not ready yet. Which is fine because it’s three years away, right?

Unless the cautious careful  planning, the deep dives into policy to build a platform for government are suddenly to be rushed forward to bring down a PM, which might in short order in a number of scenarios eventually bring down a Government.

Besides there are advantages of having a deeply unpopular and mortally wounded and weakened individual struggling on in the top job. Maybe that’s the plan. I can see that.It’s a bit party before country, but then Starmer is the hypocritical expert there.

Maybe I’m instinctively too cautious, maybe I lack the killer instinct, happier with the logic of phased  well thought out plan over four years to change, learn tough lessons, acknowledge mistakes, offer a consistent message to voters over years, and develop the language, policy and mindset to tackle the challenges the country faces, which no party, including our own, has yet demonstrated that it truly understands when it comes to the scale of the the remedies required – all of which will be bad medicine to the voters.

Credible radical unpopularism is, if you’ll forgive me, a bastard to sell on doorsteps.

I await PMQs with interest today. It will be hard to get the audible gasp of last week’s skewering. The fact at the PM is at the despatch box at all shows that so far, the when, if perhaps not the if, is still not fixed.

But if it is to be ‘Keir today, gone tomorrow’ I just wonder if we need to be careful what we wish for.

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.

Since we’ve still got quite the wait until spring offers some relief to all this dreariness, you won’t be alone in wanting to make your home as cosy and comforting as physically possible.

Escape the cold and make your sofa – the heart of many a home – as warm as you can with these cosy buys, from throws and cushions to big fleece dressing gowns and more.

Dr Austen Morgan is a barrister at 33 Bedford Row Chambers.  He is the author of: Pretence: why the United Kingdom needs a written constitution, London 2023.

When, at last Wednesday’s PMQs, Kemi Badenoch was wasting Sir Keir Starmer over ‘Mandelson’ (as he is now known), there was also revealed something of the Prime Minister’s attitude towards UK troops on operations overseas.

Charlie Dewhirst, a new conservative MP, asked a question, after Badenoch’s allotted six:

“Was he [the prime minister] ever instructed by Mr Shiner’s law firm, Public Interest Lawyers [of Birmingham], to act in any legal case?”

The prime minister replied: “Let me be absolutely clear about this: as soon as there were any allegations of wrongdoing by Phil Shiner, I had absolutely nothing to do with him.”

That, as we lawyers say, is an implied admission of probable earlier involvement with Phil Shiner, if not with wrongdoing – not that the mainstream media had any bandwidth to deconstruct the answer and interrogate Number 10’s feeble attempts to portray the prime minister as the new best friend of military veterans.

The answer lies in our law reports, which are public documents, and in particular two important cases: Al-Skeini, in 2004-07, which went to the house of lords; and Al-Jedda, in 2005-07, which also went to our highest court.  Both sets of claimants were represented by Phil Shiner of Public Interest Lawyers.

The Al-Skeini claimants were the Iraqi relatives of six men killed by UK soldiers.  The legal issue became whether the Human Rights Act 1998 applied in another country, namely Iraq, in which case the relatives would be entitled to effective investigations in the UK.  Five appellants failed, but the father of Baha Mousa succeeded because his son – a hotel receptionist in Basra – died in military detention.

Lord Bingham, the senior law lord, whom I have admired throughout my career, dissented, dealing with the complexities of international law (unlike the advocates before the court): the sovereignty and jurisdiction of two states; customary international law (including international humanitarian law); and a multilateral human rights agreement.  The Bingham dissent, not the judgment, is the landmark.

Sir Keir Starmer QC appeared in the case, one of his juniors being a Richard Hermer from his chambers.  He represented the so-called interveners, who were: the redress trust; the AIRE centre; Amnesty International; the association for the prevention of torture; the bar human rights committee, British Irish Rights Watch; Interights, Justice; the Kurdish human rights project; the law society of England and Wales; and Liberty.

Reading the House of Lords law report (68 pages), one notes: ‘the first five claimants (strongly supported by the interveners)’ (p 176); and ‘the appellants (supported by the interveners’ (p 207).

Number 10, however, was spinning (without scrutiny) regarding the prime minister: one, he was never instructed by Phil Shiner; two, he only popped up in one case representing interveners; three, these were led by the law society of England and Wales; four, these interveners acted only as amicus curiae (friends of the court); and five, he acted pro bono under the cab-rank rule (which does not apply if there is no payment).

All of those points finally fall away when one considers the second case, Al-Jedda.  This concerned an Iraqi asylum seeker who had obtained British nationality, but returned to Iraq – despite his international protection – in 2004, where he was detained by UK forces. Al-Jedda lost in the divisional court on 12 August 2005, in the court of appeal on 29 March 2006 and in the House of Lords on 12 December 2007.

In the two latter courts, the appellant was represented by Keir Starmer QC, another silk who is now an eminent judge, Richard Hermer and two other juniors.  They were instructed by Public Interest Lawyers, and paid presumably out of legal aid.

Al-Jedda appears further in the law reports, between 2009 and 2014.  Keir Starmer became director of public prosecutions on 1 November 2008, and was no longer available.  His former lay client (Al-Jedda) remained in the hands of Phil Shiner and Richard Hermer QC (as he became).

On Monday, 2 February 2026, during departmental questions, Mark Francois, a tory terrier took on the newish veterans’ minister, Louise Sandher-Jones.  He referred to a recent comment of General Sir Peter Wall, a retired chief of the general staff, who had queried the prime minister’s ability – given his legal antecedents as an advocate – to act in the interests of national security.

The minister told the house of commons – with Sir Keir Starmer, just back from China, on the front bench – : ‘I gently remind him [Francois] that the Prime Minister did not work with that individual or with any organisation, and his role was limited to working with the Law Society on points of law.’

At the end of departmental questions, Francois tried to raise a point of order, seemingly brandishing a copy of the Al-Jedda House of Lords report from 2007.  The speaker called the secretary of state, John Healey.  He began to, as he put it, ‘set the record straight’, only to be cut off by the Speaker: ‘We have had enough of trying to continue the debate – it now ends.’

It is the case that, on the basis of number 10’s spinning: a junior minister arguably misled the house of commons on Monday, 2 February 2026; this was not cleared up in prime minister’s questions on Wednesday; and it remained uncorrected at the end of the week – the line should have been that Keir Starmer did act in the Al-Jedda appeals in 2006 and 2007 on the instructions of Phil Shiner of Public Interest Lawyers.

The Al-Skeini and Al-Jedda cases trundled on to the European court of human rights in Strasbourg.  On, ironically the same day, 7 July 2011, Phil Shiner was vindicated twice over.  In Al-Skeini, ignoring the learning of Lord Bingham, the Human Rights Act 1998 was held to bind every UK serviceperson.  In Al-Jedda, he was held to have been unlawfully detained under article 5.

Al-Skeini and Al-Jedda – in which Sir Keir Starmer was intimately involved at the highest levels – are two good reasons why the UK, just as soon as this government becomes history,  should withdraw from the European convention on human rights.

Miriam Cates is the former MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge.

Among those of us who sat as Conservative MPs in the last parliament, the current political turmoil evokes a strong sense of deja-vu. The parallels between the Mandelson affair and the last weeks of Boris Johnson’s premiership are uncanny. Although Partygate and the Epstein files are worlds apart in terms of their seriousness, both scandals bolstered campaigns to oust sitting prime ministers with large parliamentary majorities.

Both Johnson and Sir Keir Starmer relied on powerful advisors who became lightning rods for  backbench discontent. Although Dominic Cummings resigned 18 months before Johnson’s demise, he played a similar role to Morgan McSweeney, who on Sunday was scapegoated for the Mandelson debacle and left Downing Street. In the run up to his departure, Johnson ‘revamped’ his Number 10 operation, losing key aides Dan Rosenfeld and Munira Mirza, and bringing in Guto Hari and Steve Barclay to ‘reboot’ his comms strategy. Similarly for Starmer, Tim Allen is out, standing down to allow “a new No 10 team to be built”.

The first signs of the end for Johnson – and perhaps for Starmer – began with being publicly undermined by a string of senior MPs calling publicly for their Party leader to step down. I will never forget watching David Davis rise to his feet in a packed House of Commons in January 2022 and implore Johnson “for the love of God man; go”. Clive Lewis’ scathing tweets about our current prime minister are somewhat less rousing.

In another parallel between the two cases, the beleaguered prime ministers’ Scottish deputies were among the first to break ranks. In January 2022, Ruth Davidson declared Johnson ‘unfit for office’; on Monday, Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar called for Starmer to step down. Politicians north of the border are clearly ahead of the curve.

Ultimately, Johnson was toppled by a slew of ministers resigning en masse; so far Starmer’s cabinet is holding firm, although the support expressed in their tightly coordinated loyal social media posts seems neither heartfelt nor unconditional. And, just as then-chancellor Rishi Sunak was accused of starting a covert leadership campaign early in 2022, so Wes Streeting is thought to be on manoeuvers now.

After a well-received performance at the Parliamentary Labour Party meeting on Monday, Starmer seems safe for now – as did Johnson after he won (narrowly) a vote of no confidence in June 2022. Yet as it was for Johnson, this may yet be a temporary reprieve. Seven weeks after that vote, Johnson was gone, brought down by the fallout from accusations that Chris Pincher, the deputy chief whip drunkenly groped a man in the Carlton Club. For Starmer, any number of potential bumps in the road in the coming weeks may re-ignite the smoking embers of a coup.

If Sir Keir quits, whatever the immediate catalyst for his departure – poor by-election results, a badly received spring statement or perhaps another ministerial scandal – it will not be the true cause of his undoing, just as Johnson’s poor judgement in dithering over Chris Pincher was not the primary reason for his downfall. For both prime ministers, a leadership crisis followed a steady loss of confidence among their MPs that eroded their authority with each political hiccup.

Johnson and Starmer have a tendency to U-turn under pressure; sending backbenchers out to defend unpopular policies one day which are then reversed the next is a surefire way to lose support. But it’s not only U-turns that cause disaffection. Just like Johnson’s Tories in 2022, Starmer’s Labour MPs are watching the plunging polls with horror. I remember the unease in the House of Commons tea room when the Conservative vote share started to fall below 35 per cent in the final months of 2021. The Labour Party is now polling consistently below 20 per cent; backbenchers have every reason to panic. Poor polling convinces many MPs that they have nothing to lose – and everything to gain – by switching leaders.

Of course no two events in politics or history are identical. Just because Johnson was forced out, precipitating a slow and painful Tory demise doesn’t mean the same will happen to Sir Keir and Labour. But the fact that two prime ministers of such different characters, in different parties and under different circumstances, can face such similar situations may indicate that this state of affairs has more to do with our political system than the specific weaknesses of Starmer and Johnson.

We are living through a time of acute political instability. If Starmer premiership ends this year as predicted, he will make way for Britain’s seventh Prime Minister in a decade. The last time a Party leader won a majority at a general election and then went into the next election still as Prime Minister was in 2001, a quarter of a century ago. Of course there have been many periods of turmoil in our history, but the feverish nature of politics over the last 15 years or so feels unprecedented, and shows no signs of abating. Why?

An obvious culprit is the rise of the smartphone, social media and instant messaging. The sheer quantity of information that can now be exchanged, and the ease and instantaneity of communication, have made it vastly easier for MPs to communicate their complaints and opinions with their colleagues  – and with journalists – than in the past. When secret plotting involved arranging to meet unseen in dark corridors at pre-arranged times in the Palace of Westminster, there were practical barriers to arranging a mutiny.

Continuous political updates on Twitter (X) allow MPs to take the political temperature every five minutes, rather than once a day while reading the newspaper over their tea room porridge. Instant communications have sped up time; politics now operates in permanent crisis mode, with overstimulated journalists and MPs living on adrenaline, conditioned to react rather than respond to events.

More frequent polling has also made it difficult for MPs to take a longer view of the political cycle. Since 2016, reforms to polling methods have made predictions far more accurate. A few consecutive surveys that show your party is falling in popularity can no longer be dismissed, and with the constant stream of new data, MPs track the polls like a doctor tracks a critical patient’s heart beat – every fluctuation seems to demand a drastic intervention.

But technology is not the only factor driving dissatisfaction with leaders. We are living through a major political realignment, where previously consensus issues like the necessity of strong borders, what it means to be British, and the importance of providing for yourself and your family are now highly contested. The splits on these issues do not always fall along traditional left-right lines, and so have fractured both Labour and Conservative parties. Although both Johnson and Starmer won large parliamentary majorities, neither prime minister ever had a true majority when it came to political direction. I’m not sure Boris ever knew his own mind on the subject of the welfare state, but had he tried to cut benefits he would have found his party just as split as Starmer’s.

The impotence of government has also played a role in discontent. Blairite reforms stripped power away from both parliament and the executive. The inability of ministers to get a grip on immigration or house building owes more to rule by quango than to the incompetence of our leaders. MPs may express discontent over the ‘direction of travel’, but there is nothing quick that prime ministers can do to fix things, instead resorting to ‘resets’ and meaningless talk about ‘values’.

There has also been a growing trend to play the man not the ball, with opposition parties and the press putting pressure on individuals to resign after mistakes, in much the same way as football managers are told to quit after a few bad performances. In the last parliament, Starmer, Angela Rayner et al made a habit of calling for scalps on an almost weekly basis. Now Kemi Badenoch and the Conservatives have taken up where Labour left off, demanding the resignations of Reeves, Rayner, Mandelson and now Starmer.

His Majesty’s Opposition of course exists to challenge the government of the day, but, to me at least, it is unclear how it is in the national interest to continually undermine the position of those in elected office, especially when there are no clear preferable alternatives. If Starmer goes, he may well be replaced by someone far to the left of him; the reaction of the markets would cause genuine pain to voters.

The current political turmoil looks set to continue for some time, and it can’t all be blamed on technology and tactics. Underlying the discontent in both Parliament and the country is a sense that Britain is in decline and that not even a government with a large majority can rescue our country. The public must shoulder some responsibility for our political paralysis; the kinds of painful reforms that are necessary to save Britain – on tax, immigration, energy and planning – are unlikely to command majority support. Most voters – and possibly many MPs – still want lower taxes and higher public spending, something that no prime minister can hope to deliver.

But politicians are to blame too. Johnson and Starmer, like many of their MPs, seem to have no motivating purpose other than ‘managing’ the country well. When ‘management’ fails, it is unsurprising that neither backbenchers nor ministers are able to hold their nerve.

So how do we escape the vortex of political instability? There is no hope to be found in the left of politics; the few individuals who might understand how to rebuild our society and economy are isolated and have insufficient support within their movements.

The answers lie on the right, and as we approach the next election, conservatives in both Reform and the Conservative Party must prepare a radical and detailed programme for government, including repealing Tony Blair’s assault on democratic power. And both parties – and their leaders – must define and communicate a vision for Britain that goes beyond good management, inspiring patriotism and preparing the public for the kind of hardship that will be inevitable if we are going to turn the country around. Stable leadership is still possible; but not for at least three more long years.

Sir John Redwood is a former MP for Wokingham and a former Secretary of State for Wales. He will soon join the House of Lords.

Many ministers are intelligent and well-intentioned people. When Rishi Sunak said “Stop the boats” he meant it. When Yvette Cooper said “smash the gangs”, she probably meant it. Yet illegal migration came down only a bit under Sunak, and shot up again under Labour. It was not stopped or drastically reduced as people want. It is going to take more changes of our laws and instructions to courts to deliver. The system seems to thwart the policy.

Conservative and Labour governments in recent years have put huge extra money into the NHS. Ministers have asked for more consultations and treatments to get waiting lists down. Instead, there has been a big collapse in productivity. Labour’s reduction in waiting lists is mainly an exercise in removing the dead, ending double-counting and dropping those who have recovered from the lists. Conservative ministers wanted the lists made accurate, but it did not happen. (The lists should always have been more accurate.)

Both Conservative and Labour have tipped ever more subsidy into the railways and have taken more government control over how they are run. As a reward, the fully-nationalised HS2 has run ever later behind schedule and presented taxpayers with ever bigger bills. Both governments agreed that the performance was so bad, and the costs so huge, the railway would no longer reach the North, its planned destination and main original purpose.

So why does nothing work? Sometimes it is politicians who let appearances triumph over reality. Labour ministers who say they want less  illegal migration may want more legal migration and are looking at ways of switching people from illegal to legal. More normally, however, it is a worrying failure of public sector management. Ministers set targets and issue instructions. They vote through more money. But things do not work.

There may in some cases be ministers who expect too much and contribute too little. Regardless, they are ultimately responsible and have to take the blame. For example, Labour thought it could set a target of building 1.5 m homes and tried to get more planning permissions agreed; it did not understand its tax and economic policy meant people could not afford the homes so the builders cannot build them all.

Quite often, however, the fault lies in failure by senior executives and officials in the public sector. Targets and general policies are agreed, but they do not follow through, or do not design the detail in ways that can work.

Part of the answer can be ministers who do more of the detail and take more daily interest in the implementation and management of policy. Ministers can intervene in many ways, and demand good regular reports on outcomes.

It would help if they stayed longer in a job, and would improve chances of success if they had agreed with the prime minister (or their secretary of state) what their main tasks and objectives are, so they can concentrate on the differences they wish to make. The Conservative deployment of Nick Gibb as an schools minister to raise literacy standards shows how powerful this approach can be. He led the schools to use synthetic phonics to teach reading – and England’s reading standards rose well.

Part of the answer is to improve bonus and performance monitoring schemes for top officials. Some of the biggest disasters like HS2 and the Post Office have occurred where public sector CEOs are paid £500,000 or more, well over civil service norms. The CEOs also were often paid bonuses, yet their organisations were losing large sums, over-running budgets, and creating many problems. By all means pay some senior managers big money – but only if they beat budgets, deliver on time or sooner, show an ability to get better value for money, and drive higher productivity and quality. Pay no bonus if things are going wrong, or remove them promptly from the job if poor performance is likely to be endemic.

I have been drawing up a toolkit of methods used by good managers to align staff and service users interests, to demonstrate efficiency  and quality are two sides of the same coin, to reduce the cash demands needed for the provision of good services. The public sector often keeps too much stock, part occupies too many buildings, has too many staff in roles  that do not assist its main tasks, and uses too many expensive  consultancies  and agency staff for  things it could get its own employees to do in house.

As I take up the privilege of becoming a peer in the House of Lords, I look forward to more opportunities to develop this debate on how ministers and managers in the public sector can work together better to achieve so much more for the service users. We also need to save taxpayers more of the costs of waste and failure, which are part of the  cause of high taxes and excessive borrowing. If the UK public sector could recoup lost productivity since 2019 the largest part of the current deficit would disappear. If it could manage just a one per cent% annual productivity gain; but even that saves £13bn a year.