3 min read7 min

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 min read7 min

The leader of Restore Britain made the remark during an appearance on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast.  

His comments have been described as “insulting” and “despicable” by local politicians.

In March 1996, 16 children, aged five and six, and their teacher Gwen Mayor were shot dead by Thomas Hamilton in the gym hall of Dunblane Primary School, in what is still the deadliest mass shooting ever in the UK. A further 15 children and three adults were wounded, and Hamilton turned the gun on himself.  

The MP for Great Yarmouth made the comment when speaking on legislation to ban handguns that was introduced following the massacre.

He said: “They don’t want the public to have guns, and they are doing their very best to damage the shooters who perfectly and legitimately like to go and shoot clay pigeons, who like to go and shoot game, who like to go and hunt.

“Effectively, they are trying to make that very difficult through the licensing laws for guns.

“As you probably know, they banned handguns in the late 90s because there was a murder up in Dunblane.”

Joe Rogan asked: “One murder?”

Lowe replied: “One murder.”

He added: “My father used to shoot pistols for Oxford University, he’s dead now, bless him, but he had all his pistols taken away, the pistols he used to shoot with at Oxford University. I mean, we now have a society that needs radical change.”

Conservative MSP Stephen Kerr has described Lowe’s comments as “genuinely shocking” and that “to reduce that atrocity to ‘one murder’ is deeply insulting”.

Posting on X, he said his children’s school, which was “about 15 minutes from Dunblane”, was locked down that day.  

“They’ll never forget being kept in the gym hall until everyone learned the gunman was dead. They’ll never forget the teachers trying to hold themselves together while reassuring frightened children,” he said.

Kerr added: “It wasn’t a single murder. It was a mass murder. In a primary school.  

“Almost as disturbing was the tone – one of disbelief, even mockery, that anyone could respond by tightening gun laws.  

“This wasn’t some obscure historical event. It happened in 1996, when Lowe was 38 years old. He should have known what happened on that terrifying day in Dunblane.  

“For anyone who remembers that day, hearing it dismissed so casually is genuinely shocking.”

The SNP depute leader and MSP for Dunblane, Keith Brown, described Lowe’s comments as “beyond despicable”.

He added: “Despite these hideous remarks from Rupert Lowe, the Snowdrop Campaign that followed that terrible day ensured a ban on the private ownership of most handguns – that is the proud legacy of the bereaved families and the local community.  

“Their courage and determination in the aftermath of the attack is something we should never betray and our community will never let the likes of Rupert Lowe do exactly that.”

The Snowdrop Petition calling for tighter gun laws that followed the massacre was signed more than 750,000 times, and along with the Cullen Inquiry, led to the ban on private ownership of higher-calibre handguns in 1997. The ban was then extended to .22 handguns later that year.

This article originally appeared on Holyrood

Olivia Bailey, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Equalities (Credit: House of Commons)

3 min read10 min

Olivia Bailey, the minister for LGBT+ equalities, said parents would not be given any “carve-out” from the government’s planned ban on “abusive conversion practices” which cause “serious harm” to the victim. Those found guilty of breaching the proposed law could be sentenced to up to five years in prison.

Amid concern from religious and gender-critical campaigners that the draft Conversion Practices Bill could undermine parental autonomy, Bailey insisted the legislation will not prevent parents from choosing how to raise their children, as the courts will only convict people guilty of practices which meet strict thresholds for abuse.

The minister told The House magazine: “This is about abuse; it is about a very specific form of abuse. It is not about policing opinions, it is not about policing how parents parent, and it is for the courts to determine, not politicians, but – rightly – for the courts to determine what meets that threshold of abuse.”

Asked whether she expects any parents to go to prison as a result of the legislation, she said: “I think that anybody committing abuse, no matter where you find it, no matter in what walk of life – there are not carve-outs for abuse by parents in any other legal environment.

“So I think it is completely right that we just say very clearly in this legislation: we want to stop abuse, we want to stop abuse wherever it happens. Full stop. End of story.”

The bill defines a conversion practice as “any conduct” carried out with the intention of causing another person to have or not to have, or to believe they have or do not have, a particular sexuality or transgender identity.

But an offence only occurs where that conduct “amounts to an abuse of the individual”. In determining that, consideration would be given as to whether words or behaviour “of a sexual nature” or which are “violent or threatening” or “controlling or coercive” have been used, as well as whether “economic” or “psychological or emotional” pressure has been applied, “among other things”.

The victim must also have been caused “serious harm” to their “mental or physical health”, or “serious alarm or distress” which has a “substantial adverse effect on their usual day-to-day activities”.

The law will not only prohibit conversion practices aimed at making someone straight or cisgender and will, at least in principle, apply equally to practices aimed at making someone adopt an LGBTQ+ identity.

Healthcare services will be exempt from the bill’s provisions, except where a healthcare practitioner “falls far below the standards reasonably expected of a person in their position”.

The full interview with Olivia Bailey on the draft Conversion Practices Bill will feature in the next edition of The House magazine in print and online.