Could your town be entirely car-free?

It seems unlikely unless you have a small village or town centre. Even then, most existing car-free zones are subject to strong physical constraints. For example:

• Zermatt - mountains, population 6,000

• Fes el-Bali - medieval old town, 156,000

Larger cities have only got as far as car-free or car-discouraged central zones

• Ljubljana - medieval old town, population 300,000

• Gent - medieval old town, population 280,000

Typically, completely car-free towns are not seen as practical. You can challenge that.

Where to start?

Start moving towards car-free towns slowly, and if you can, with positive improvements.

For a counter-example, Gent cut connectivity between the inner parts of town, so all cross-town traffic has to go via the ring-road. This significantly reduced traffic in the inner area, with the side-effect of more traffic on the ring road.

In theory, this approach could work for some UK towns. But it’s likely to face forceful resistance from locals.

Start small

Here are some ideas for your town to start with small improvements, that, tackled in this order, should not trigger protest riots.

Improve public transport

So many short journeys outside London could be made on public transport - if there were any! Our recommendations:

• Provide bus or tram routes that connect residential areas with shopping and cultural centres

• Improve the frequency of the transport

• Tackle punctuality - for example, add extra vehicles just after congestion pinch-points, or plan for the option to skip stops if there is bunching

Create edge-of-town car parks

Not out-of-city car parks that need a bus transfer.

• Create car parks close to the edge of the urban area, with access to a bus or tram route

• Once they are up and running, close city-centre car parks

Create one-way access

Lots of roads in the centres of towns are already one-way, but very few access roads are.

Many cities have a hub-and-spoke layout that suits alternate one-way travel.

For a concrete example, consider Accrington

You could make the following roads one-way:

• Hyndburn Road

• Whalley Road

• Burnley Road

• Manchester Road

With alternate the directions, traffic still has access - some research suggests it might even flow more smoothly.

Be ambitious with one-way roads

Once roads are one-way, you don’t have to keep two or more lanes for cars. You have a second lane you can use for:

• bus lanes

• trams

• cycle lanes

• wider pedestrian walkways

Think radically about traffic division

There has long been tension for cyclists between battling with cars - dangerous for cyclists, and battling with pedestrians - dangerous for pedestrians.

One option is to separate traffic not by type (car / cycle / pedestrian), but by speed:

• < 5 mph: pedestrians, wheelchairs, and mobility scooters plus less ambitious, younger, or older cyclists and scooters

• 5 - 15 mph: faster cyclists, e-bikes, e-scooters, some buses and trams

• 15 - 20 mph: cars, buses and trams, and the most ambitious cyclists and e-bikes

Prioritise accessibility

Everything up to now should be improvements for all road users: pedestrians, wheelchairs, drivers, and businesses.

Those with accessibility needs should be starting to appreciate how much easier it is to get around with pedestrian-friendly areas and improved public transport.

Be more ambitious

But don’t lose accessibility.

Ban privately owned vehicles

If you’ve ever been on holiday somewhere car-free, you’ll have noticed there are actually small golf-cart and flatbed vehicles. It’s just that they are all owned by local businesses or communities.

This could be extended. Businesses could pick you or goods up from the train station or edge-of-town car park:

• hotels

• restaurants

• shopping centres

• hairdresser

Small service businesses like hairdressers, accountants, or lawyers could combine to share a vehicle.

The council could provide vehicles for all smaller businesses and their customers.

Create guidelines to prioritise those with accessibility needs - which includes all of us when we have luggage, or as we get older.

Ban fossil fuels

Once there’s a limited pool of vehicles in town, it’s possible to ban fossil fuels, and require all remaining vehicles to be electric.

Enjoy the holiday feel

Once the car-free model beds in, we all feel more like visiting town is a holiday, and less like a commuting chore.

Get there slowly, and bring your community with you.

Be the first

Our challenge to towns around England: be the first to go car-free the slow and positive way.

If you have an urban population in tens of thousands and a train station, we reckon you should consider it. We’ve made a short list, ordered by size, and skipping those with no train station (although you could still have a go). Our thanks to Wikipedia.

Here’s to you:

• Aldershot

• Borehamwood

• Blyth

• Chorley

• Leyland

• Prescot

• Rowley Regis

• Ilkeston

• Long Eaton

• Fleet

• Bicester (congratulations, you’ve already modelled this for the touristy bit)

• Redcar

• Whitley Bay

• Camberley

• Warwick

• Dover

• Tonbridge

• Chippenham

• Hyde

• Epsom

• Hucknall

• Exmouth

Be the first to go car-free!

The theme we find most challenging is a request to cut costs. This typically means a service is no longer provided, or substantially degraded. While it can save taxpayer money, it also has a negative impact on some constituents, and longer term on all of us. Cutting support for those who are already struggling leads to outcomes like rough sleeping and increased crime.

How can we do better? Thinking about this context and the start of parliament, led us to suggestions for MPs in the new parliament.

Value for money

Value for money is easier to justify when the same service is provided for less cost. Here is one example from health and care. We’re sure there are more to find!

Delayed discharges

When people in hospital have finished their medical treatment, both they and the hospital want them to move on. But if they aren’t able to support themselves at home, they sometimes get stuck, and their discharge is delayed.

Recommended question:

• provide more care homes and nursing homes, these are cheaper than hospital beds, or more generally

• provide more [x], it’s cheaper than [y] and better value for money

Favour nudges over bans

We’d love to see less use of AI, but an outright ban would be impractical, both difficult to enforce and politically unpopular.

Instead, stop tech companies wasting energy and water on AI support when it’s not needed, but it’s still available.

Recommended question:

• legislate for search engine default to have AI helpers off, or more generally

• legislate for [x] to default to [y] off

Growth mindset

Instead of cost cutting, a regular political ideal is organic growth leading to increased tax revenue: we all agree on the goal, but what’s the best way to achieve it?

Recommended questions:

• expand training to help people into work

• research ways to increase salaries, minimum wage, and living wage, without compromising employment rates

• support more businesses to take on apprentices

• invest in new and growing businesses, for example through Innovate UK funding and business support programmes

Our ask

You may only have one or two opportunities. As the new parliamentary year begins, we ask you to choose wisely, and prioritise questions that will do the most good for the widest range of constituents.

The implication was: we should stick with existing fossil fuel power stations, because “green” energy isn’t really green, just has good PR.

Similar tactics were used in the UK for the Brexit debate.

They are still used today in other memes. We’ve deconstructed this concrete example to help you spot these tactics in future.

Compare with perfection

Instead of wind turbines, we could build more fossil fuel power stations. Power stations are not perfectly, or even slightly, recyclable. The meme carefully didn’t mention fossil fuels or power stations, it was left to the reader to forget that fewer wind turbines would mean more of something else.

Instead of EU membership, the UK sets out independently. Brexit memes carefully didn’t mention how difficult it would be to negotiate trade deals with large wealthy neighbours once we left.

Focus on one aspect

Being able to recycle infrastructure whether it’s turbines, solar panels, or power stations, is great. But it’s a tiny proportion of the energy and waste involved in the process.

Even if wind turbines were 100% non-recyclable, they would still compare well with fossil fuel power stations over their lifetime because the majority of pollution and carbon emissions come during the generating process, not during the manufacture of the buildings. For wind and solar, there are no pollution and carbon emissions from producing power.

Even if there are benefits for the UK having more sovereignty (and to be clear, we struggle to find examples), we are worse off overall, because of increased friction in trade and travel, and reduced cooperation a range of areas from security and defence to medical and scientific research.

Mis-label

If one (tiny) aspect of wind turbines is not as environmentally friendly as it might be, label the entire scheme unsound.

The EU does have a lot of legislation, highlighted by accusations of red tape.

But it doesn’t exist to create legislation. A key activity of the EU is to standardise legislation between dozens of countries.

In some cases, there might be 2 sets of laws. In others, 27 sets with extra variations. The EU became master negotiators because standardising is difficult: every nation prefers to be the one that doesn’t make a change.

Over time, hundreds of standardisations, from USB-C cables to transferable qualifications, via food and pharmacy standards, have made life smoother and simpler for businesses, workers, and travellers.

During the Brexit debate, somehow both sides accepted terms like “red tape”, with very few mentions about the benefits of standardisation.

Ignore improvement

Recent searches failed to find the meme about wind turbines. Why? Because, if you search for wind turbines and recycling, you’ll find much improvement in the recyclability of wind turbines.

Harder to find is that behind these statistics is EU legislation. Even at the time of the meme, the EU was already working on the snappily named 2024/1735 regulation. It’s recently been implemented under 2026/718¹.

Where do we go from here?

Wind turbines, government, and institutions are all flawed and inefficient. Inefficiencies are not a reason to shut them down. They are a reason to lobby and legislate for improvement.

When you read something that feels wrong, but you aren’t sure how or why, look for these tactics:

• compare with mythical perfection

• focus on a single aspect

• mis-label

• ignore improvements

References

1. EU 2026/718

How do we fund social care?

The implication is, we need to raise loads of extra money, most likely through taxes.

But social care isn’t like most government spending.

Implicit government funding model

If the government doesn’t fund something, for example defence, then the defence spending doesn’t happen. For more defence, we need to find more money.

Care funding model

But if the government doesn’t fund care provision, that care provision still happens.

How is it funded?

• Individuals and families pay for care homes privately

• Local councils pay for care homes from council tax

• Individuals provide unpaid care, many claim carer’s allowance

This isn’t a reform that means the care system suddenly needs lots of new money, or provides lots of new care.

It’s a reform to change the distribution of care costs we are already paying for.

Done well, national taxpayers might need to find a little more money, while care users and council taxpayers need to find a lot less.

It’s about redistributing the load, not new spending.

Opportunities to save money

In many scenarios, we like local and devolved spending, but care offers a good example of one that needs national review.

And as a bonus, here are two reforms that save money.

1. Care home beds [1] are cheaper than hospital beds. Moving people more quickly from hospital into care provides a net saving.

2. At home care provision is cheaper than living in a care home. As well as more cost effective, most people prefer to stay in their own homes as long as they can.

We believe #2: but we couldn’t find an academic, journalistic, or think tank reference. Instead, here are some figures.

Home care visits

£30 / hour [2]

£490 / week (at 2 hours / day)

Obviously, this adds up when you need more hours. We don’t claim it would be right for all care patients. Or even most. But if it works for 10%, that would still make a huge difference to costs.

Residential care home

£1200 - £1800 / week [3]

Hospital

£345 / day [4]

£2415 / week

Pragmatic reforms

Keeping people in care homes rather than hospital beds saves money.

Keeping people in their own homes for longer, up to the point where they start to need full-day care, saves money.

We believe it makes sense to reform the care system so that costs are shared more evenly.

We’d love to see more journalists and commentators mention that this is money we already spend. And it falls disproportionately on families and local councils.

In June 2026, Elon Musk briefly became worth $1 trillion.

Of course, he can’t spend it - this is wealth tied up in his businesses. If he tried to sell the shares, their value would crash.

This isn’t advice, just a thought experiment. What if we had $1 trillion?

International organisations

The combined budget of UN, WHO, UNHCR, and other UN system agencies comes to around $46 billion[1].

That’s astonishingly little, relative to what these organisations achieve.

There are reasonable criticisms: international organisations are too US-centric, too Western-centric, and have diversity blind spots, like gender and ability. Could we spend money to fix these?

Or start again? What would the world be like if we had new organisations working for peace and prosperity, with better inclusivity and a more regional focus.

Education in African Nations

While there has been progress in education provision in African nations, there’s also been population growth. It’s hard to keep up. As a result, some 100 million of young children don’t have formal education. UNESCO estimates the cost of funding the gap at $77 billion [2]

Ideally, this would cover more than one year, but shouldn’t be needed forever. The joy of investing in education is that after a while, it turns into growth and at some point in future, it will become easier for nations to fund their own education.

World hunger

The headline, ending world hunger, is ambitious. The truth is, hunger has been growing recently: affected by wars in places like Yemen, Palestine, and Ukraine. Climate change is on track to make things worse.

In the West, we see headlines suggesting food prices will go up. That’s bad enough, but in many places, the poorest are going hungry. And it’s desperately unnecessary. There is enough food for all, it’s just badly distributed.

The world food programme estimate that $93 billion[3] a year and a few peace deals would go a long way to feeding the world’s most hungry.

It’s also an effective way of supporting people where they are in their home countries.

Poverty

Another ambitious headline: end world poverty. Poverty is relative, and, full disclosure, this would only target those at the extreme end of poverty.

Two decades of stagnating wages and rising inflation have left many people in poverty in many countries. There is a case for supporting our own.

Stanford university make the case for tackling the most extreme poverty, and it would only cost $170 billion [4] a year. It’s where we could make the most difference most quickly.

We’re ambivalent on the geography, we’d like to see billionaires doing more to tackle poverty wherever it’s found.

Health

We had a recent lesson in the importance of investment in health only a few years ago. The Covid pandemic. Only a few years on, governments are reducing their investment in pharmaceutical research and development.

Luckily, private enterprise is picking up some of the gap.

Smart Pharma suggest annual investment is around $289 billion [5].

Think what more diseases and conditions you could tackle with more investment.

There are controversies around the Bill Gates foundation, but we’d like to give them credit for trying, and for positive achievements. We’d like to see more billionaires trying.

Green energy

We hate the all-too-frequent description of green energy as “expensive”. It really isn’t. The marginal costs of renewables are pretty close to zero. Green energy systems are capital-intensive. That is, they need up-front cash investment. Longer term, you get it all back and more.

And while households might not have cash available, governments and billionaires do.

The IEA estimate green energy investment in emerging markets at around $300 billion [6]

What’s not to like about saving the planet and saving (long-term) money?

Chocolate

We were worried we were getting too sanctimonious.

We’re big fans of chocolate. On the consuming end, it’s good for mental health. On the producing end, it grows best in areas of the tropics that also suit addictive drugs with much more dangerous side effects, and where employment is low.

Statista reckon $25 billion [7] would cover the cost of chocolate purchases in the US for a year.

And completes the billion on a sweet note. (Sorry, couldn’t resist).

Summary

The numbers are estimates and the headlines are hubristic. But the goals are genuine. We believe in a better future, and, with governments globally under financial strains, we’d like to see more independent foundations help us get there.

The most distinctive and internationally famous feature of British politics and Parliament is Prime Minister’s Questions which celebrates its 50th anniversary this month. The raucousness, noise, and adversarial point-scoring have often been deplored, not least by successive Speakers of the Commons. It is inconceivable, however, that it could ever cease.

That’s how the Institute for Government describes Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs).

In the last year, 650 MPs asked 909 questions.

Why do we care about PMQs?

We believe it’s an opportunity. A chance for any MP from any party to ask the government a question about any topic.

Some questions are brilliant and insightful.

Some are passionate and empathetic.

Some are point-scoring.

We encourage all MPs from all parties to see PMQs as an opportunity to support UK constituents. Not to moan about what another party, or the government, is or is not doing, or has done. Not to make political points about named individuals.

We offer this analysis of PMQs from the 2025-6 parliament as a baseline. We hope (some) MPs will do better next year, if they know we track their effectiveness. And we applaud those who already use PMQs effectively.

This year

What areas did MPs ask questions about? Not surprisingly, the economy scored highly.

But other figures don’t entirely reflect the things we all care about. Like the desperation for multiple generations struggling to rent or buy a home. Or the crisis in higher education.

We recommend MPs prioritise areas where we can be more effective.

Principles

We like constructive questions: that drive positive changes for all.

We categorised over half of all questions asked as positive.

It’s just… it would be nicer to have a few more questions supporting workers.

Another chunk of questions were in areas like:

• Administration

• Restitution (inquiries, compensation)

• Specific to local constituency

• Not UK

These are things governments should do, but we’re not sure PMQs is the right forum to discuss them.

There’s a lot going on in geopolitics, and we love the idea of stopping wars all around the globe. But it’s not clear that asking a question about Ukraine in PMQs will change Russian behaviour. Or achieve anything else for UK constituents.

If an MP wants to get a hospital or pollution issue fixed, they should start with the local trust or company, then industry regulators. But if that process hasn’t worked, parliament is the backstop. We defend the right of MPs to use PMQs when essential: but ideally, these would be a small(er) proportion of questions.

And we don’t think there’s a case for any MP to use PMQs to ask or complain about another party or the government.

Our suggestion to MPs, ask yourself: how does this question help UK constituents?

Politics

650 MPs asked 909 questions: a typical MP will only get a chance to ask a single question. If you have an important opportunity to do something for your constituents we suggest you make it count.

The second most popular area to ask questions about was politics.

Some of this is justifiable. For example, asking about proportional representation (PR), or about foreign interference in our elections.

But there has been a lot of debate over Peter Mandelson: whether he should be ambassador to the US; whether the government erred in the decision; who knew what. We’re not sure the breadth and depth of these debates add value to UK constituents.

Instead, we recommend MPs prioritise areas where they can make a difference. For example, housing or education.

And ask: what theme do you want this parliament remembered for?

Process

We have not used AI to produce this data. It’s all categorised by hand, any mistakes or biases are human ones. Some marginal decisions were made by intuition or vibe.

Classification is based on the YouTube recording of the session and Hansard. The master record of events should always be Hansard.

We assign each PMQ question with three columns of metadata:

1. Category

2. Principle

3. Area

The categories and principles are from fixed(ish) lists. The area column is free-form, and not included in external statistics. We use it for keyword searches.

Categories

The categories grew organically, for example Culture and Sports was added late on, and this has probably affected some of the statistics in a small way.

2025-6 categories in alphabetical order:

• Culture and sports

• Armed forces

• Crime and safety

• Economy

• Education

• Environment

• Equality

• Health and care

• Housing

• Infrastructure

• International relations

• Politics

Which category?

A major challenge from the beginning, has been the number of questions and answers that could fit into two or more categories.

We make judgement calls as best we can.

Here are some of the patterns we have tried to follow: with the caveat that there is both subjectivity and likely inconsistencies.

• Buildings count as Infrastructure (for example, a school is not Education and a hospital is not Health and Care)

• Some questions almost defy categorising. For example, SEND-related question could be categorised under any of infrastructure, education, or equality, depending on how specific or wide-ranging the question feels.

• When a question covers multiple areas, for example “solve fundamental problems”, we try and take a steer from the area of the PM’s response

• When a question covers a substantive area, and also makes a political point, we go with the substantive (non-politics) category

Politics

The politics category is intentionally fairly broad. It covers both procedural questions and more spiky topics. For example, all of these count as politics:

• proportional representation

• interference in UK elections

• devolution process

• actions of MPs and political parties

But only the last in this list would also have a principle of Party Political, the others would most likely be Administrative or Protect.

Principles

List of 2025-6 principles in alphabetical order:

• Administrative

• Fair for everyone

• Invest and prevent

• Legislate sensibly

• No action

• Not UK

• Party political

• Protect

• Restitution

• Specific constituency

• Value workforce

These have been more tricky than categories, so here’s more explanation of our approach.

Positive principles

We believe that ideally, all PMQ questions would fall under principles that achieve something constructive for voters.

Specifically, we encourage these areas:

• Fair for everyone

• Invest and prevent

• Legislate sensibly

• Protect

• Value workforce

Last resort principles

Anything from the post office scandal to a hospital roof that needs repair. We believe government, regulatory bodies, local councils, and other institutions should normally act without a question in the house of commons.

But, when the real world doesn’t meet our ideals, MPs need the ability to ask questions in these areas. We wouldn’t want to ban this kind of question entirely, but we’d love to see the ratio shrink. We encourage MPs to see these as “last resort” questions.

• Restitution

• Specific constituency

Wars and other foreign stuff

We’re absolutely not fans of many geopolitical events, like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. But we also aren’t clear how asking a question in parliament either stops it or does anything else for UK constituents.

We encourage MPs to prioritise things we have some control over. Not what other countries get up to.

Plus, we assume the government is working quietly behind the scenes to influence where they can, and probably don’t welcome these topics being aired in a public forum.

• Not UK

Less useful principles

There are some areas where different principles are in tension. We have not got it right, we plan to review and improve next year.

We didn’t think about this enough early on, and this is where we’d most like to make changes next year. But we didn’t want to drop the whole programme either, so for now, we have these flawed categories.

• Administrative

• No action

Party principles

Our least favourite principle is party political.

This is where one MP points out the failings in what another MP or party have or haven’t done or said.

As well as contributing to polarisation and culture wars, it’s not at all constructive because almost invariably, it’s about something that happened in the past, and is unlikely to improve anything for constituents.

Some MPs are ask a substantive question, and through clever wording, manage to slot in party point-scoring as well. In this case, and subject to human error, we only categorise the substantive part. When we say “Party political”, we mean the only reason for the question was a party political rant.

We’re disappointed how many questions fell into this principle.

• Party political

Future plans

When we began, we weren’t sure this was going to be manageable in time available, or what it would show. We thought we might run out of enthusiasm. But it became more and more interesting.

We believe this was a good start, and already has interesting insights, but we can do better.

We’d like to add “belonging” category, or maybe rename equality.

A question about spending less on benefits has the principle of value for taxpayers. With hindsight, that’s a missing principle.

A question in the same category about supporting employed or disabled by spending more on benefits or training, could be a principle of value the workforce, fair for everyone, or invest and prevent.

Which one is a “good” principle is subject to political bias.

We will continue to revise and improve principles and categories to improve objectivity.

We don’t promise to keep them identical: for example, we might split Economy into Taxes and Growth, or Industry.

We will notify changes when they happen, and when comparisons are no longer valid.

We’d love your feedback and suggestions, comment on our social media posts or send us an email.

You can’t just not pay your debts

Here’s our suggestion. Not debt relief. A repayment cap.

Example

Here’s an example of a debt repayment schedule with three different scenarios.

Miss one payment, and extra fees or penalties are added. With payday loans or other expensive forms of credit, it’s possible to pay and pay and still never clear the original debt.

You could improve things by increasing your repayments, but, if you’re borrowing from payday lenders, you might have an interest rate much higher than 5%.

Which is a long way of saying you might not be able to afford to pay more.

Progressive proposal

Our proposal: cap the total amount repayable at 2x the original debt.

No one should ever have to repay more than twice the amount they originally borrowed.

We believe this principle could apply broadly:

• personal debt

• business debt

• national debt

• international debt

The cap would not affect the majority of lending: anyone in scenario B or C would not see a change. This includes the majority of mortgage payers. If you were hoping to get rid of your mortgage - sorry, this plan won’t help you.

But for those who are least able to pay, in scenario A, the debt would be wiped off when repayments for £1,000 of debt reach £2,000.

Alternative

There is another approach, which is already in use for UK student loans. It’s to cap by time, rather than by amount repaid.

Here are examples of a plan 2 loan, with different salaries and repayment rates. We’ve left out inflation for simplicity.

This cap is so effective, that even though someone earning £30,000 makes payments for several decades, they still repay less than the original loan. And someone earning £50,000 still doesn’t get to the end of the repayments within three decades.

We like this idea too.

If we could, we’d reduce both the 28 year limit, and the interest rate, which varies by several factors, but is over 6% for some graduates.

Whataboutery

It’s not right to walk away from debt

We agree, debts should be repaid. But there is a real problem with debts that keep growing long after the original amount has been repaid with interest.

We’re not suggesting anyone cancels all debt, or repayments, or interest. Just those that go beyond a fair limit.

Once a borrower has repaid double what they originally owed, we don’t believe the lender has lost out.

Fair for everyone

In some cases, the same organisation may be both a lender and a borrower. A business might lend to customers while also borrowing from a bank or government institution.

If repayment caps applied only in one part of the system, that could create instability: money owed to them might be capped, while the money they owe others would not be.

That is why this idea works best if it applies across the board - to personal, business, national, and international debt alike.

Precedent

This isn’t a new idea. Records of debt cancellation go back to 2400 BC, and more recently, German debt in 1953. In case you’re wondering, that’s worked out pretty well, both for Germans and for anyone who exports to them.

Summary

This is not a case for avoiding responsibility. It is a case for stopping debt from turning into a life sentence.

A system that allows people to repay far more than they originally borrowed, yet still remain trapped, is not simply strict, it is broken.

Government should make everyday life easier. It should remove friction and help people get to work, get care, learn, and build stable lives. Our approach is practical, evidence-led, calm in tone, and ambitious in outcome. You do not have to call yourself ‘progressive’ to agree on one basic principle: the essentials should work.

Since 2008, we feel four pillars of the UK economy have steadily been getting worse: health, education, transport, and housing. For example: longer NHS waiting lists, more congestion, and out of control house prices for both buying and renting. Those of us who live here don’t need statistics, we feel these gaps every day.

Also since 2008, statistics show that employment has been getting broadly “better”, both in terms of lower unemployment, and higher employment rates.

Why isn’t high employment driving a healthy government budget and great services? Higher employment rates don’t improve government finances if a significant proportion of workers still receive benefits.

Brexit

This background, of underpaid workers and worsening services, was the context for Brexit.

During the Brexit debate, among the many terrible things that happened, one that persists is increasing lack of respect for differing views. And we’re all scared of the whole topic.

New progressives do not believe brexiters were stupid. We agree there were and still are problems, and we agree they need new solutions. Where we differ is that we don’t believe migration is the root cause, or that leaving the EU is the best fix. 

We understand that lots of media - both traditional and social - hammered messages home and prioritised a single, poorly-defined solution: “Brexit”. It’s easy to agree with a headline that points out real problems. They proposed a simple-sounding solution frequently, across many outlets, and it was easy to get hooked. Our take: it wasn’t simple, and it wasn’t the right solution. But the problems, and your concerns, are real. And have only got worse.

Our proposals

Listen

Government delivers best when it listens and builds with the people who make services work. That means local authorities, frontline staff, employers, unions, charities, and users themselves. Confidence comes from credible institutions and transparent analysis, not slogans. 

For major reforms that take years, such as adult social care, we will seek cross party agreement where possible. Not to dilute change, but to make it last. Long term systems fail when they are rebuilt every election cycle.

Pragmatism over dogma

We care about results, not endless arguments. Use whatever works best, whether public delivery, regulated markets, or a mix, with clear guardrails. Does it improve daily life reliably, fairly, and affordably? 

Stop confusing activity with progress. Structural change that does not improve the service is not reform, it is theatre. Policy will be judged by what people actually experience. Waiting times. Reliability. Cost. Simplicity. Dignity.

Life rate over tax rate 

People find tax rates boring. What they care about is more money at the end of the month, after paying essential bills.

For example, if tax rates go up, and at the same time:

• High quality pre-school childcare is widely available and heavily subsidised

• Breakfast and after-school clubs are free

• Good quality school holiday day camps are widely available and affordable

Families would be better off. 

Ignore the headlines about tax rates, how is your life rate going?

Lead, don’t follow culture

We don’t have to let a few extremists drive policies. Malta (see the culture section) and the Republic of Ireland have both demonstrated a combination of constitutional protection, dedicated policy infrastructure, and ongoing government accountability can lead rather than follow cultural and religious habits.

In recent years, public debate has been diverted to so-called culture war issues: highly polarising topics around identity, immigration, and social values.

These debates sow division and distract from the core economic issues and structural issues. Many people are exhausted by the constant outrage cycle. They worry that genuine issues, like women’s safety or community cohesion, are being hijacked by political point-scoring and online trolling.

At the same time, minorities and vulnerable groups feel under attack, as if their rights are up for debate. 

We, as a country, are better than this: Britain can have important discussions without descending into hate or absurdity. We will work to reduce tensions and fears.

What Is Going Wrong

Communities feel scared: of outsiders, of racial attacks, of each other. Patriotism is often presented as exclusionary, while diversity is portrayed as a threat to social cohesion.

While freedom of expression remains robust in law, the nature of digital platforms and polarised debate can distort how this freedom is experienced in practice. Some individuals are scared to speak up, others feel actively “cancelled”. 

Too many economic and political debates are held in the context of “in” and “out” groups. Of us against them. A scarcity mindset stokes inter-generational warfare.

Social media, AI, and too many many politicians fan the flames of polarised views into extremism.

Our proposals

Invest and prevent

Facts over fear

Often the minorities accused of being a threat are the most at risk of abuse and violence. Or the group accused of hogging all the resources are suffering, like all of us, from reduced service quality and increased living expenses.

Evidence suggests overall economic impacts of migration are often neutral or positive, but benefits and pressures vary by place and by the capacity of housing, public services, and local infrastructure.

Listen first. Promote honest conversations grounded in evidence and fairness, to reject scapegoating. Publish clear, accessible data on regional migration levels and outcomes so debates are anchored in reality.

Value the workforce

Support strong wages.

Where the UK has clear shortages, we support international recruitment, and will review this regularly. Add stronger domestic training pipelines and enforcement of labour standards so migrant workers cannot be exploited, and wage growth remains strong for everyone.

Legislate sensibly

Clear legislation.

Document a faster and fairer asylum process. Prioritise quick, high-quality decisions to reduce backlogs and expensive temporary accommodation. Expand safe and legal routes in cooperation with international partners.

Uphold consistent free speech protections alongside clear standards against abuse

Provide clear, practical guidance so institutions understand how to meet everyone’s needs lawfully and respectfully.

Fair for everyone

Fairness across communities.

No group has the monopoly on privilege, or on hurt. Listen to concerns about structural bias around class, gender, ethnicity, ability, and geography. Restore balance wherever possible: by improving life experiences for those at the harmful end, not by removing rights from those seen as more privileged.

Avoid zero-sum thinking. We can support trans people while also taking women’s safety seriously. These goals are not in conflict.

Protect

Security for communities and minorities

Protect trans people from discrimination, while also allowing single-sex services in limited circumstances and where it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Dial down the rhetoric and dial up the practical solutions. Be guided by evidence, democratic values, and respect for human dignity, not by outrage or political point-scoring. Spent political energy on providing services, not burning bridges between communities.

We are stronger when we focus on what unites us, not what drives us apart.

Global best practices

Malta

Same-sex sexual activity has been legal in Malta since January 1973, but society and culture took a while to catch up. Homophobia was rife in the context of strong religious influences and traditional society.

Initiatives

• Enact comprehensive gender law

• Ban conversion practices (the first in the EU)

• Legalise same-sex marriage and adoption with full legal equality

• Embed LGBTQ+ protections at constitutional level 

Impact

Malta has topped the Rainbow Map [50] in the EU for LGBTQ+ rights for ten consecutive years. Malta moved from having no legal recognition of same-sex relationships to achieving the highest score of any European country on LGBTQ+ rights. This transformation was achieved through a deliberate, cumulative programme of legislation covering equality, gender recognition, family rights, and protection from harm.

Sweden

Immigration into Sweden grew rapidly through the 1990s up to the mid 2010s. 

Initiatives

• Establish a structured introduction programme, combining language, civic orientation, and employment support

• Enact one of the most comprehensive anti-discrimination frameworks in Europe 

• Require municipalities to receive and integrate refugees through binding national legislation

Impact

Sweden has maintained the highest MIPEX [51] (Migrant Integration Policy Index) score, consistently ranking among the top countries for migrant integration.

How to measure progress

Hate crime: race, religious, and sexual hate crime incidents

Office for National Statistics Hate Crime [52]

Work should provide stability and dignity, but many people feel work has become increasingly insecure and stressful. Parents struggle to balance jobs with childcare.

In a low-paid or entry level job, you often do not know how many hours or shifts you will have, making it hard to plan your life or budget for bills. For everyone, wages have not kept up with the cost of living. Each pay packet stretches thinner than the last. 

Young people are stuck in a catch-22: they need experience in order to get a first role that will provide experience. Unpaid internships are only affordable for the privileged.

The economy is changing through automation and AI, some jobs are disappearing. Others are created, but even so, too many workers feel the odds are stacked against them, and hard work does not lead to security or progress.

What Is Going Wrong

Several structural issues have eroded the quality of work.

Stagnant Pay: In the decade after 2008, real earnings were weak for many workers, and recent improvements have often been offset by inflation. 

Insecurity: Contracts often do not guarantee a minimum number of hours. This provides flexibility to some, but for many, it means unpredictability and one-sided risk . 

Skills Gaps: Employers report persistent shortages and skills gaps, yet adult training and progression routes for people already in work remain uneven.

Childcare And Support Gaps: Childcare costs in the UK are scarily high.

Welfare Disincentives: Despite taper rates, Universal Credit and childcare support combine to create weak incentives to work. 

Workplace Health: Work-related stress, depression, and anxiety remain major causes of ill health and working days lost.

Our proposals

Invest and prevent

Support life-long learning

Invest in high quality academic, vocational, and apprenticeship training paths, and continued professional development for the entire workforce.

Value the workforce

Progression is the point.

Entry-level jobs lead somewhere: through training and clear routes to promotion. Re-skilling becomes a normal part of working life. Support occupational and mental health.

Childcare as core infrastructure: we’ll always try to avoid tax rises, but the priority is the overall life rate. The key is to improve disposable income after mortgage or rent, bills, and childcare.

Legislate sensibly

Benefits and tax rates are progressive.

Review universal credit to make sure benefits provide an affordable living, and taper sensibly so that extra work reliably increases take-home pay. All employees should have predictable hours and income.

Simplify and standardise tax thresholds to remove cliff-edges 

Fair for everyone

Opportunity for all.

Access to careers must not depend on who can afford to work for free or who has the right connections. Facilitate skills-based hiring and local employer groups for everyone from teenagers to over-50s.

Protect

Fair pay

Close exploitation loopholes. Legislate to support fair pay, while protecting operating margins. We recognise this is a difficult balance, and will consult with industry on specific proposals.

Global best practices

Singapore

Singapore faced pressure to maintain a highly skilled workforce in a rapidly changing global economy. Technological change and automation risked making workers’ skills outdated, while growing gaps between employer needs and workforce capabilities increased uncertainty about job security and career progression.

Initiatives

• Introduce SkillsFuture credits to fund lifelong training

• Create modular and stackable courses to build qualifications gradually

• Launch a central careers portal

• Expand work-study and employer-supported training 

Impact

The SkillsFuture [40] programme has led to a strong increase in adult and mid-career training, with clearer progression pathways and retraining options. Reduced anxiety about job loss, automation, and technological change. Stronger workforce skills, higher productivity, and stronger workforce competitiveness.

Denmark

Denmark needed to balance economic flexibility with worker security. Labour market rigidities risked slowing adjustment during downturns, while economic shocks threatened long-term unemployment and skill loss..

Initiatives

• Develop a model combining flexible labour laws with strong social protection

• Provide generous unemployment benefits during job transitions

• Introduce policies to support training and job placements

• Intervene early to prevent long-term unemployment

• Align training with labour market demand

Impact

A flexisecurity labour market [41] led to shorter unemployment periods, including during recessions, with low levels of long-term unemployment. High worker confidence in job transitions, combined with employer confidence and led to strong labour market resilience and participation.

How to measure progress

Real pay growth: Median pay and real earnings trends

Office for National Statistics Weekly Earnings [42]

Low pay and living standards: Share of jobs paid above the Real Living Wage

Living Wage Foundation rates [43]

In work poverty: Poverty in working households

DWP Households Below Average Income statistics [44]

Job security and quality: Prevalence of contracts with no guaranteed hours and underemployment

Office for National Statistics Zero-Hours data [45]

Workplace wellbeing: Work related stress prevalence and working days lost

Health and Safety Executive Work-related Stress statistics [46]

Skills and progression: Employer reported skills gaps and training participation

DFE Employer Skills Survey [47]

Labour market inclusion: Employment rates by group and region

OECD Labour Market Situation [48]

The NHS is a source of pride. But also a source of anxiety. People worry: if I or a family member fall ill, will we get quality, timely care?

Getting an NHS dentist appointment feels like winning the lottery in some parts of the country. A hospital referral can mean months of waiting. A&E visitors can spend hours in a corridor,

Social care leaves families to fend for themselves. Mental health support is barely existent, until it’s too late. Hospitals cover some of these gaps, making waiting times worse, adding to cost, and often without the relevant specialist knowledge.

Frontline staff - doctors, nurses, paramedics, and care workers - do essential work but are stretched and exhausted. Many social care workers are underpaid or even unpaid for work that is skilled, emotional, and vital. It should not be this hard.

What Is Going Wrong

Several deep-rooted issues collide. Chronic undercapacity: we have not trained or hired enough staff to meet growing demand, and we have not built enough modern facilities. The UK has fewer doctors and substantially fewer hospital beds per person than the OECD average.

A reactive model: we wait for illness or crisis, then scramble, instead of preventing and managing conditions early. Public health and prevention services have been reduced in real terms over the last decade, increasing pressure on primary and urgent care. Mental health has been under-resourced relative to need, and is consistently undervalued. Social care reform has stalled completely.

Fragmentation is another culprit: health, mental health, and social care operate in silos, so patients repeat their story to multiple services and locations. Systems are not upgraded or integrated, antique hardware and poor interoperability waste staff time.

Our proposals

Invest and prevent

Start early, start local

Prioritise prevention and early intervention. Build on recent improvements in A&E waiting times. Expand hospital-at-home and intermediate care to free hospital capacity.

Value the workforce

Support for very tough jobs.

Empower management to support training, wellbeing, and progression so health and care careers are attractive and sustainable. Introduce elective, voluntary shift patterns, so individuals can choose what suits their family. Recruit into mental health support and social care.

Legislate sensibly

Share data effectively.

Invest in modern, effective, integrated systems, so that all practitioners can access the same quality and quantity of data for their patients. Build a digital front door. Review potential to include the private sector, always making sure to keep data safe.

Strengthen discharge pathways. Expand capacity for elective care. Investigate private-public partnerships to reduce backlogs. 

Fair for everyone

Fairness across health areas.

Integrate mental health, neurodiversity support, and end-of-life care. Encourage high standards everywhere. 

Keep non-digital access points so no-one is excluded. 

Protect

Keep staff and patients safe

Abuse of NHS staff is unacceptable: protect our key workers. Patient care should meet consistently high standards.

Global best practices

Japan

Japan needed to address fragmented, hard-to-access care that left vulnerable populations facing gaps in support, social isolation, and reactive, uncoordinated services.

Initiatives

• Establish one-stop consultation centers

• Integrate care for older adults, children, and those with disabilities

• Integrate medical, social, and community organisations

• Provide continuous care at home and in the community for those with complex needs 

Impact

High take-up rates from municipalities for a community-based integrated care system [29]. Better support at or close to home, with increased community participation leads to reduced isolation for vulnerable groups.

South Korea

South Korea needed to improve healthcare access for rural and housebound patients with chronic diseases, dementia, or rehabilitation needs: while cutting costs.

Initiatives

• Teleconsultation programme [30]

Impact

Clinical outcomes were maintained, with high reported levels of patient satisfaction, and substantial cost savings.

The Netherlands

Fragmented, bureaucratic, and understaffed home and community care led to poor continuity, delayed recovery, and overburdened hospitals.

Initiatives

• Locally based holistic teams

• Professional autonomy - self-governing nursing teams [31]

• Simple technology

• Integration with community support

Impact

Reduced hospital admission rates, faster recovery, and greater patient satisfaction for reduced costs. A highly motivated workforce with lower burnout and turnover.

How to measure progress

Waiting lists and waits: Referral to Treatment waiting list size and median waits, plus A&E performance and ambulance response times

NHS England statistics for consultant referral [32] and A&E [33] waiting times

Primary care access: GP Patient Survey indicators on access and contact

NHS England GP Patient survey [34]

Mental health access: NHS Talking Therapies waiting time standards and outcomes

NHS Digital Talking Therapies Statistics [35]

Financials: health system cost to government and end users

The King’s Fund Health Policy review[36]

Social care and integration: Delayed discharge metrics and intermediate care capacity

Nuffield Trust Delayed Discharges from Hospital [37]

Health workforce: vacancies and turnover

Skills for Care Adult care workforce [38]

Care quality: reviews from the independent regulator

CQC social care quality ratings [39]

Housing has stopped feeling like a normal part of life and started feeling like a constant stress test. 

You work, you budget, and you try to plan, but the numbers still do not add up. 

Rent takes a huge chunk of your pay. Moving can mean losing your community or your childcare. Buying a home can feel like a closed club unless your family help with a deposit. 

If you have children, you might be one rent rise away from having to move and disrupt their education. If you are older, you might be stuck in a home that is too big, too cold, or too hard to manage, with nowhere suitable to move to nearby. 

And in too many town centres, you see the impact of this crisis in the numbers of people living in temporary accommodation and rough sleeping.

What Is Going Wrong

The problem is not a mystery; it is a pile-up. We have not added enough homes, especially in the areas where people need them most. Affordability has deteriorated in both renting and buying.

Prices might have peaked, but in 2024, private renters in England spent too much of their income on rent, for many, more than the 30% affordability threshold. Households with mortgages are also stretched. The most severe shortages show up in homelessness and pressure on councils to provide temporary accommodation.

 Housing supply has been constrained by a delivery model that builds slowly where profit is highest, rather than where need is greatest. 

There is inadequate social housing, rental options for families, and accessible homes for older or disabled people. Quality is a major issue, and renting is seen as a “poor” option. 

Finally, the system often pits generations against each other: younger people are locked out of ownership, older people are stuck in unsuitable housing, and communities are fighting over development because they see only downsides.

Our proposals

Invest and prevent

Homes first

A home is where life happens. A stable home increases life opportunities. Housing policy should treat homes as essential infrastructure, not a side concern. It is cheaper and kinder to prevent homelessness than to manage it after the fact.

Value the workforce

Plan for the long term, and publish strategy early.

Support construction companies to hire permanently and invest in training, with confidence from predictable long-term government housing policies.

Legislate sensibly

Clear legal framework.

Rationalise land taxes so they are not a barrier to moving, especially downsizing.

Fair for everyone

Fairness across generations and tenures.

Renting should feel stable and normal, not a second-class status. Owning should be achievable again for those who work hard. 

Policy must balance the needs of renters, first-time buyers, and those in later life looking to downsize. It should also take account of local concerns about new developments.

Protect

Security for renters, landlords, and homeowners

Initiate a cross-party review. Create an independent organisation to review housing policy, listen to local concerns, and support council decision-making.

Maximise use and efficiency of our current housing. Build attractive, manageable homes for retirees, to encourage them to downsize.

Global best practices

Austria

Rather than treat housing as a market commodity, Austria [20] has maintained a fundamentally different approach. Housing is essential public infrastructure, sustained through dedicated funding, regulated providers, and a commitment to supply that has never been abandoned.

Initiatives

• Maintain the largest social and subsidised housing stock in Europe

• Regulate through “limited-profit” housing associations

• Subsidise supply, not demand

• Reserve land specifically for planned housing

• Never privatise municipal housing

• Invest at scale

Impact

A regulated, self-sustaining housing sector that reinvests surpluses into new construction rather than extracting them as profit. A rental market where the majority of tenants in the capital live in publicly owned or regulated housing, keeping rents among the lowest of any major European city. 

Singapore

One of the most densely populated countries in the world initially faced severe housing shortages. Within three decades, the government transformed the housing landscape entirely through direct state provision at a scale unmatched by any comparable economy.

Initiatives

• Housing and Development Board actively support families with subsidised prices, grants, and mortgage financing

• Allow residents to use mandatory retirement savings to finance house purchases

• Progressive grants structure for lower-income households

• Use housing policy to support racial integration

• Ensure supply through state-managed construction programmes

• Build complete communities, not just housing units

Impact

Sustained high levels of home ownership, including for the lowest-income households. Government support for housing [21] does not rely on private investment affected by financial cycles.

Japan

Rather than building public housing at scale, Japan centralised planning authority at the national level, created a permissive zoning system that treats housing as the default land use, and removed the local vetoes that constrain supply in most Western countries. 

Initiatives

• Centralised zoning

• Compliant new new constructions proceed without review

• Rebuilding schedule to improve climate and earthquake resilience

The result is a market where supply exceeds demand and affordability is structural. Reduced delays and uncertainty in the planning process means developers have more confidence to invest. The result is near-zero official homelessness. And lower house prices [22], relative to income.

How to measure progress

Housing supply: Net additional dwellings per year and where they are built

Official housing supply statistics [23]

Renting Affordability: Rent as a percentage of income

ONS private rental affordability [24]

Affordability Buying: House price to disposable household income ratios

ONS mortgage affordability [25]

Homelessness and temporary accommodation: Households in temporary accommodation and rough sleepers

Government homelessness [26] and rough sleeping [27] statistics

Housing quality: Non-decent homes and damp prevalence, especially in the private rented sector

Government English Housing Quality Survey [28]

Getting around should be simple. Too often it is tiring, unreliable, and expensive. 

Roads are full of potholes. Buses vanish or do not turn up. Trains cost a lot and still feel unpredictable. If you do not drive, whole areas can feel out of reach. Jobs, opportunities, and even social lives shrink as a result.


Infrastructure is not just transport. People notice slow broadband, limited electric vehicle charging, and concerns about water and energy reliability. It is frustrating when basic systems in this country feel stuck in the past.

The UK has Victorian water infrastructure and the world’s oldest rail infrastructure. And it feels like there haven’t been many upgrades since.

When infrastructure degrades or fails, it is not abstract. People feel it in their daily routines.

What Is Going Wrong

UK Government Annual Bus Statistics, March 2025

Bus provision is dropping outside London, even though passenger levels are rebounding after the pandemic.

Infrastructure problems did not appear overnight. They are the result of long term underinvestment and short term decision making. Maintenance has too often been ignored in favour of big announcements. As a result, roads, rail, and utilities have deteriorated. Even when projects are approved, they frequently run over budget or behind schedule. 

Infrastructure gaps are unevenly distributed. Ofcom reports progress on gigabit broadband but continuing disparities between urban and rural areas. Evidence shows clear regional differences in transport investment. Short termism has delayed essential upgrades, and people now experience the cost in delays, unreliability, and lost opportunity.

Too many construction and engineering workers face uncertainty on short-term and zero-hours contracts.

Our proposals

Invest and prevent

Fix what people use every day. 

Prioritise maintenance and reliability over expansion. Put maintenance on a stable footing through multiyear settlements for local roads, with clear outcomes and transparent reporting.

Link public transport funding to improvements in reliability and coverage. Increase preventive maintenance. Prioritise punctuality, capacity, and green technologies. Electrify bus fleets.

Value the workforce

Plan for the long term, and publish early.

Support construction and infrastructure companies to hire permanently and invest in training, with confidence from predictable long-term government contracts. As a bonus, it’s cheaper than using subcontractors: and better value for taxpayers.

Legislate sensibly

Simplify.

Roll out contactless pay-as-you-go ticketing and fare capping across the country. Integrate transport with single tickets for multiple transport types.

Fair for everyone

Connect lives, not just places.

Close regional gaps and invest in nationwide transit schemes. Link people to jobs, services, and each other, not just big cities. Expand public charging for homes without driveways.

Protect

Protect service provision independent of political events

Initiate a cross-party review of processes. Create independent organisations to award government contracts. Learn from how the Bank of England reduces the impact of political cycles.

Global best practices

Singapore

Facing the compounding pressures of limited land, ageing assets, a growing population, and rising sea levels, Singapore has pursued a coordinated approach to infrastructure renewal by combining physical engineering, sustainable design, and targeted use of technology

Initiatives

• Deploy AI to improve road maintenance efficiency

• Redesign transport corridors to support cyclists, pedestrians, and e-scooters as well as cards

• Build a deep tunnel sewer system

• Invest in coastal defenses

Impact

Road defects are detected more quickly. Transport is more sustainable and flexible, and reduces car dependency. A gravity-powered used water system [11] secures long-term water supplies. Public housing estates are systematically upgraded with practical measures that reduce energy and water consumption at scale.

France

Facing ageing transport networks, urban congestion, climate vulnerability, and the need to decarbonise at scale, France combined large-scale capital investment with neighbourhood level redesign, pursuing national infrastructure programmes and locally led transformation.

Initiatives

• Redesign Paris around the 15-minute city concept

• Launch Europe’s largest transport infrastructure project to connect underserved commuter suburbs with employment and cultural sites

• Scale up retrofitting housing for sustainability

• Renew investment in nuclear power

Impact

A major shift in mobility [12], some areas now see more journeys by bicycle than by car. Clear long-term commitment to low-carbon electricity generation. A nationally coordinated framework for climate adaptation. Lower carbon emissions and energy bills for public housing residents. 

How to measure progress

Travel times: Average time people spend travelling per day

National Travel Survey [13]

Rail: Passenger rail usage, punctuality, and cancellations

Office of Rail and Road datasets [14]

Bus usage and availability: Service levels and passenger journeys

Government bus statistics [15]

Road quality: Condition and maintenance of local roads

National Audit Office analysis [16]

Water and the environment: serious incidents

Environment Agency report [17]

Digital readiness: Gigabit capable broadband coverage and remaining gaps

Ofcom Connected Nations report [18]

Ageing Infrastructure: Water, flood defenses, and transport

National Engineering Policy Center report [19] 

School should feel like a launchpad. For too many families it’s more of a battle. Children are stressed and struggling with mental health. Parents worry their child is falling behind or being overlooked. Students often can’t find high-quality vocational training.

Families with special educational needs and disabilities face long waits, complex processes, and constant form filling. Some parents feel so stuck they choose elective home education, which has risen sharply in recent years. 

Teachers are stretched, tired, and fed up with long hours and administrative box-ticking. Many leave. Universities are reducing their workforce and struggling to keep finances balanced.

What is going wrong

At every stage of education, you’re more likely to do well if your parents are better off - and themselves have higher qualifications. Progress closing attainment gaps has stalled and in some cases reversed.

Lost learning, reduced social development, and rising mental health needs put pressure on pupils and schools. Disadvantaged and SEND students still too often miss early support that could prevent problems escalating.

The system has also failed to keep pace with modern life. Academic routes still dominate while technical pathways remain undervalued. Lifelong learning is difficult to access in a fast changing economy.

The physical environment matters too. Ageing school buildings and delayed repairs, affect safety, comfort, and the ability to learn well.

Schools and universities are not serving anyone well: not students, not teachers or lecturers, and not employers.

Employers feel the knock-on effect when young people arrive without the confidence, support, or pathways they need.

Our proposals

Invest and prevent

Early intervention prevents future crises in everything from mental health to collapsing ceilings. 

Every school will have clear routes to speech and language support, mental health services, and SEND assessment. Families will not have to repeat their story at every stage. 

Local partnerships between schools, NHS services, and councils will set named leads and published response times so support is fast, visible, and reliable, as recommended by the National Audit Office [1]

Publish a transparent national plan to repair and rebuild school buildings, prioritising safety and the worst conditions first. Urgent works will be easier to deliver and schools will receive technical support so classrooms remain safe and fit for learning.

Establish a time limited commission to build a sustainable higher education funding settlement that protects opportunity, supports research, and requires transparent financial planning. This responds directly to evidence of financial strain across the sector within the wider funding pressures identified nationally.

Value the workforce

Retention improves when teachers have time, backing, and professional respect.

Cut unnecessary workload by simplifying data demands, reducing duplicated reporting, and funding more support staff. Expand flexible working, protect planning time, and focus retention incentives on shortage subjects and areas so teachers stay and pupils benefit.

Inspection should help schools improve, not simply label them. Provide clearer reporting useful to parents and professionals alongside improvement support where needed, building on reforms emerging from Ofsted’s Big Listen [2]

Legislate sensibly

Make it easier to identify students in need and transfer between schools with standardised assessments

 Schools will be offered optional yearly assessments that are quick, low stakes, and curriculum aligned. The aim is early diagnosis and targeted help. Pupils who need support will receive it promptly through tutoring, small groups, or short boosters chosen locally.

Fair for everyone

Technical and vocational routes will be first choice options, not fallbacks.

Pilot locally designed school calendars that still meet required teaching days but better reflect family and community needs, and allow teachers and families to take more affordable holidays outside peak times. We will measure effects on attendance, staff wellbeing, childcare pressures, and attainment, and scale what works.

Raise the status, quality, and availability of vocational qualifications. Use strong local partnerships to connect schools, colleges, and employers to real jobs.

Protect

Help more employers, especially small firms, offer apprenticeships by cutting bureaucracy and improving matching. Clear progression routes show how learners can move from entry level to higher qualifications and professional careers, supported by transparent data on starts, achievements, and destinations. Build on excellent work begun by Institutes of Technology [3]

Global best practices

Canada

Ontario’s education reform shows how a system can recover when performance, trust, and teacher morale have been weakened by years of top-down change. Ontario addressed falling performance, teacher dissatisfaction, and student disengagement by changing how reform was delivered.

Initiatives

• Use assessments to identify learning needs rather than punish schools

• Introduce early and personalised student support

• Reduce workload on teachers, focus on collaboration and coaching

• Strengthen technical and vocational pathways

Impact

Student achievement in core skills improved and graduation rates rose. As did teacher morale and retention. Public confidence in education recovered through sustained, stable reform.

The education system of the province of Ontario, Canada [4] ranks among the best in the world and has been touted as a model of excellence for other countries seeking to improve their education system.

Germany

Germany faced a significant issue with youth disengagement and fragile transitions from school to work, leaving many young people at risk of dropping out or struggling to find meaningful employment. At the same time, vocational education was often viewed as a secondary or remedial option, rather than a respected route, which limited opportunities for progression and created barriers for learners who could have thrived in technical or skilled careers.

Initiatives

• Prioritised vocational education

• Created apprenticeships

• Introduced transition programmes

• Provided mentoring, tutoring, and employer mediation

• Shared responsibility and funding model

Impact

Vocational routes became respected and aspirational. Apprenticeships created multiple pathways into work, advanced qualifications, or higher education. Employers gained a skilled workforce, and young people gained practical experience and financial security.

Regional and occupation-related pay inequalities have decreased significantly through prioritising apprenticeships. And employers benefit from a reduced skills gap. [5]

How to measure progress

Child mental health: prevalence of probable mental disorders among children and young people

NHS Digital surveys [6]

Inclusion in mainstream education: rates of elective home education and the reasons behind them

Department for Education data [7]

Teacher stability: teacher retention and turnover rates

Department for Education school workforce statistics [8]

Fair outcomes: attainment gaps between disadvantaged pupils and their peers at key stages

Independent analysis and national data [9]

Pathways into work: apprenticeship starts, achievements, and progression into skilled jobs

Department for Education apprenticeship data [10]

If you find this manifesto exciting, and want to hear more about what we’re doing, here are three ways you can help!

Follow us on Bluesky

Share our homepage

Subscribe to newsletter

Tell us what you think. Suggest tweaks, rewrites, and improvements. We’re interested in all feedback on our content and posts. Our goal is:

• Warm inclusive style

• Listen to concerns

• Succinctify

• Authoritative references from trusted sources

If you have lots of ideas and want to help, or if you want to tell us your story, send an email to questionswithintent@gmail.com

About the target audience

Short term: Political influencers and podcasters, the goal is to get their feedback and, if they like it, to have them promote the manifesto.

Medium term: Centrist and centre-left politicians. There’s some potential that our next government may be a “hung” parliament, and if so, we want as many as possible signed up, or at least exposed to progressive ideas.

Longer term: Voters and journalists. Let’s all hold politicians and the government to account.

PMQs

We categorise questions at PMQs by how they fit with our priority areas and principles. We’re planning to use the data for infographics and posts, and to keep our politicians on track.

Use this manifesto as a checklist for those in power. It’s meant to be picked up, talked about, and shared, so we can build a fairer, thriving country.

New Progressive Manifesto

This manifesto is a roadmap for real, measurable improvement for all of us. Treat it as both a checklist and a report card for those in power. Ask your candidates where they stand on these commitments. Track metrics. Watch outcomes. Expect delivery.

The commitments set out here are intended to be tested against lived experience; in classrooms, on commutes, in workplaces, and in communities. If progress stalls, challenge it. If evidence shows something works, support it. If you hear of a better solution from elsewhere, demand that our leaders learn from it.

This document is also an invitation. Share it, question it, and discuss it with others. Meaningful national progress does not happen through policy papers alone. It happens when people engage, listen, and insist that good ideas are carried through into action.

This manifesto is a starting point: a serious, evidence-based plan to make everyday life work better. The next step belongs to all of us through voting, participating, giving feedback, and staying involved. Lasting change is not declared; it is delivered, measured, and felt.

This manifesto is built to be read, tested, and put into practice, by anyone who believes the country should work better in the places that matter most: real life. 

About us

We’re a diverse team of business leaders and students from several UK universities. We want Britain to do better. And be kinder.