UK outlook & action · UK · synthesis of the domain evidence, October 2026

Skilled people, investment, delivery: the three shortages holding Britain back.

Shortages of skilled people, investment and delivery capacity show up in the evidence for homes, the NHS and growth alike — our synthesis of the domain pages, not a measured ranking. None of the national plan’s options yet has a complete score or full costing, and none is rated green for delivery.

UK priority (our proposal, not government policy)

Close the three shortages — skilled people, investment and delivery capacity — together, not one service at a time.

Evidence last reviewed 7 October 2026

The plan on one screen

Four goals, with two examples from each existing review list in its recorded order. This is an editorial selection, not a ranking, government policy or approved spending; all assessments remain provisional.

Issues without an explicitly linked canonical action: 93 issues awaiting an assessment link. A linked proposal does not establish that it will work.

The national picture · 15 verified findings

What we have. What holds us back.

Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, each traced to the domain evidence behind it.

  • What we can build on

    Strengths: 4 findings

    • Services, research and universities
    • Tested interventions and independent scrutiny
    • Long-run social improvements to protect
    • A cleaner power system
  • What is holding us back

    Weaknesses: 4 findings

    • Low investment and slow growth
    • Housing and household costs
    • Ill health, work and waiting
    • Thin capacity to deliver
  • What could improve things

    Opportunities: 3 findings

    • Turn committed money into finished assets
    • Scale what has been tested, as tested
    • Sequence shared capacity; buy outcomes
  • What could make it worse

    Threats: 4 findings

    • A tight budget with costs that can jump
    • Shocks from abroad: prices and trade
    • Less delivered than promised
    • Climate and water risks are already here

Strengths: 4 findings · open one for its sources, domain evidence and the options that address it

Which quadrant a finding sits in is our judgement, not a statistical category. Opportunities are changes to appraise, not proven effects.

Weaknesses: 4 findings · open one for its sources, domain evidence and the options that address it

Which quadrant a finding sits in is our judgement, not a statistical category. Opportunities are changes to appraise, not proven effects.

Opportunities: 3 findings · open one for its sources, domain evidence and the options that address it

Which quadrant a finding sits in is our judgement, not a statistical category. Opportunities are changes to appraise, not proven effects.

Threats: 4 findings · open one for its sources, domain evidence and the options that address it

Which quadrant a finding sits in is our judgement, not a statistical category. Opportunities are changes to appraise, not proven effects.

All domain weaknesses and risks (37 domains)

The national SWOT summarises shared problems. This index retains every domain weakness and threat, including local and informational topics; inclusion does not make a proposed response a national priority.

Gaps we are still working on (93 issues)

These issues have no explicit link to a canonical action. A topic may have options while a specific issue remains unaddressed. This records assessment coverage, not the absence of possible solutions.

  • Housing: Land capacity is not completed housing. The NAO found gaps in tracking homes built through some land-unlocking funds and called for long-term monitoring across programmes. Funding allocations and an unlocked site cannot establish how many suitable homes people can occupy.
  • Housing: Supported housing is more than a bed. Residents may need help to live independently; weak oversight can leave them paying for support they do not receive. The June 2026 government response sets out licensing and support standards. These are implementation proposals, not evidence that poor provision has already been eliminated. Councils need inspection capacity and safe alternatives when provision closes.
  • Housing: The FCA found misleading promotions and unsuitable advice in later-life mortgage sales, including inadequate consideration of alternatives and incentives that could favour sales. Its intervention led reviewed firms to change their processes. Rolling up interest can substantially increase lifetime-mortgage debt; suitability and clear total-cost explanations remain important.
  • Housing: Shared ownership combines a purchased share with rent on the remainder. The NAO identifies affordability and information challenges; access should be assessed using the total ongoing cost, not just the initial deposit.
  • Housing: Mean private rent was 36.3% of median gross renter-household income, and 41.6% in London. This is a ratio of averages, not every household’s rent burden; the England share has not risen steadily.
  • Housing: Social-rent additions fell from 42,465 in 1996–97 to 12,267 in 2024–25. This is gross supply, including acquisitions, not net of sales and demolitions; Affordable Rent is a separate category.
  • Housing: Of 4,724 monitored residential buildings at least 11 metres high with unsafe cladding, 2,153 had not started remediation. This monitored portfolio is not a count of every unsafe home; coverage changes over time.
  • Housing: 4 million dwellings (15%) did not meet the Decent Homes Standard; 1.4 million (5%) had damp. Existing-home condition needs attention alongside supply and affordability. The categories overlap.
  • Housing: Lower deposits and easier lending can widen access but leave borrowers with less equity and more exposure to income, rate and house-price shocks. Your First Home was announced in September 2026; its final terms, public cost and additional supply effects are not yet established. Responsible-lending safeguards remain essential.
  • NHS: Mental-health access needs its own recovery test. CQC reports pressure on community and crisis services and a workforce that has not kept pace with demand. Hospital elective waiting-time improvements cannot establish that mental-health access or quality has improved.
  • NHS: NHS trusts estimated £15.9bn to eradicate maintenance backlog in 2024/25. This is a risk-based estimate of work needed to restore the estate, excluding planned maintenance—not a funded programme, annual bill or estimate of the benefit from each repair.
  • NHS: Community-service waits need their own recovery test. NHS England sets separate ambitions for these services; the hospital RTT measure cannot show whether people get timely rehabilitation, therapies or other community care. The guidance identifies persistent waits and calls for better demand, capacity and pathway management; it is not an evaluation of the proposed remedies.
  • NHS: Dental access needs a separate recovery test: the NAO found the 2024 dental plan was not on course to deliver its additional treatment ambition and called for proper evaluation. Elective hospital waiting lists do not measure access to an NHS dentist; this is a dated audit, not a current count of unmet need.
  • NHS: The NAO found the reset hospital programme had a more stable long-term basis, but construction schedules remained challenging. Slippage could push work and budget pressure into later funding periods. A programme announcement is not evidence that replacement hospitals are operational.
  • Education: School transport is an access and delivery constraint, especially for children with SEND. The NAO found rising costs and risks from reductions in discretionary services, but insufficient data to measure the effect on attendance.
  • Education: 18.1% of pupils were persistently absent, against 10.9% in 2018/19.
  • SEND: 718,838 children and young people held a plan in January 2026, 2.99 times the 240,183 in January 2015; in schools the share of pupils rose from 2.8% to 6.0%. Part of the rise reflects a wider legal category (plans run to age 25) and identification, not only need.
  • SEND: Mainstream schools carry the growth but support staffing has not kept pace: pupils with a plan rose 2.3 times to 538,547, while teaching assistant full-time equivalents rose about 11% to 295,183 and teachers about 2%. The two series count different things, so this is a pressure indicator, not a ratio of staff to plans. We found no national measure of one-to-one support or of the workload of special needs coordinators.
  • SEND: Councils held a cumulative special-needs deficit of £6.7bn at 31 March 2026, up from £2.3bn two years earlier. It is a reported balance held under a statutory override that runs to 31 March 2028.
  • SEND: Ofsted and CQC found inconsistent experiences and outcomes in 47 of 84 full area inspections and widespread or systemic failings in 21. These inspected areas are not a representative national sample. Five subsequent monitoring inspections found effective action on all priority actions; this does not mean all 21 areas have resolved their failings.
  • SEND: School transport is an access and delivery constraint, especially for children with SEND. The NAO found rising costs and risks from reductions in discretionary services, but insufficient data to measure the effect on attendance.
  • Energy and bills: Random audits of previously unaudited ECO4/GBIS installations estimated major or Category 1 non-compliance in 98% of external and 29% of internal wall insulation. The NAO identified oversight failures. Extending ECO4 gives time for repair; it does not establish that homes have been put right.
  • Pensions: The NAO identified digital-capability and governance weaknesses behind dashboard delays. The 31 October 2026 scheme connection deadline is not public launch: MoneyHelper public availability is expected in 2027/28. Benefits depend on usable, accurate information reaching savers, not connection alone.
  • Pensions: Saving a pension pot does not ensure a sustainable retirement income. Guided Retirement addresses difficult withdrawal choices; delivery still requires regulations, scheme governance and clear consent. Its eventual effects have not yet been established.
  • Pensions: Pension consolidation and domestic investment must protect savers’ risk-adjusted returns. The 2025 Investment Review sets out policy aims; it does not establish that any particular UK allocation will outperform a diversified alternative.
  • Pensions: On current policy the OBR projects State Pension spending rising from about 5% of GDP to about 9% by 2075–76 — about 7% with earnings uprating instead of the triple lock.
  • Political funding: In the Electoral Commission’s newly weighted 2026 survey tables, 13.85% agreed that election funding and spending are open and transparent, while 49.08% disagreed. This measures public confidence, not proven misconduct, and the weighting change prevents a simple comparison with older estimates.
  • Economy and cost of living: Output per hour worked grew about 2.2% a year from 1990 to 2007 but about 0.4% a year from 2007 to 2025. In 2025 it was 6.8% above 2007 and 0.7% below its 2023 level.
  • Economy and cost of living: Among the G7, UK output per hour grew second slowest from 2007 to 2021, and its growth rate fell further than any other, from 2.0% a year in 1997–2007 to 0.3% a year. In 2021 UK output per hour was fourth of the six members with data, with output per hour 18% higher in France and 25% higher in the United States.
  • Economy and cost of living: Regulatory reforms need evidence of results: the NAO found regulators taking action, but could not establish a material growth effect because government lacked the data. Growth objectives also require explicit trade-offs with protections for people and the environment.
  • Economy and cost of living: UK exports depend on two markets whose trade rules the UK does not set: the United States took 21.8% of UK exports in 2025 and the EU 41.3%, so a tariff or regulatory change in either reaches a large share of UK sales abroad.
  • Crime: About eight in ten adults say crime nationally has gone up, up from about six in ten ten years earlier, while Crime Survey crime excluding fraud fell about a third. A gap between belief and measurement can pull policy towards perceived rather than measured risks; worry about fraud and antisocial behaviour remains real and is measured separately.
  • Crime: More officers do not automatically create a more effective response. The NAO found earlier productivity initiatives had not produced sustained change across forces, with inconsistent standards, patchy technology adoption and limited evidence of what works.
  • Crime: 40.9% of adults experienced or witnessed local antisocial behaviour. This includes witnesses, not just direct victims. An April 2025 questionnaire-context change inflated part of the increase, so the full rise cannot be interpreted as behavioural change.
  • Crime: The NAO’s July 2026 audit found gaps in monitoring, information and responses to breaches. Better supplier performance alone does not establish that the public is protected. Expansion needs reliable records, timely fitting and a staffed response to breaches. Tag counts are an input; monitoring coverage, response times and subsequent harm are the tests. The audit does not estimate the crime prevented by an additional tag.
  • Crime: The NAO reported that about half of people in prison had an identified drug problem in April 2025. Its February 2026 audit found that prison operations and health services were not consistently working together. Security, treatment and recovery need to work together. The audit could not establish an overall value-for-money estimate; the prevalence figure is not an estimate of treatment effectiveness. Track access to treatment, continuity after release and harms alongside capacity.
  • Crime: Domestic abuse and sexual violence need their own outcome tracking: they are outside the headline survey crime total. The NAO’s January 2025 audit found that the earlier cross-government strategies had not improved victim outcomes.
  • Crime: Only 8.5% of police-recorded crimes led to a charge or summons in 2025–26, against 15.5% in 2014–15.
  • Crime: Cases wait longer to be heard: 80,829 criminal cases were open in the Crown Court at the end of June 2026, the most on record, against 38,341 in December 2019.
  • Crime: Prisons are close to full: 86,779 people were in prison on 5 October 2026 against a useable capacity of 89,012 places, leaving 2,233 free — 97.5% full.
  • Jobs and pay: About 2.7 million people of working age are economically inactive because of long-term sickness, 658,000 more than at the end of 2019, while the overall inactivity rate has barely moved. Labour Force Survey estimates carry sampling uncertainty and are revised.
  • Jobs and pay: Work-coach capacity affects the support people receive. The NAO found that 57% of jobcentres had reduced support when caseloads were too high. It called for better measures of sustained work and job quality; moving into earnings for one month does not establish a lasting job.
  • Immigration: The Home Office spent about £4.2 billion on asylum support, resettlement and accommodation in 2025-26, a short-term cost paid while claims are decided. Small-boat arrivals were about 5% of the number arriving in 2025 but account for much of public attention to this cost.
  • Immigration: NAO found no firm shared outcomes across the asylum system and insufficient interoperable data. Faster processing can shift backlogs elsewhere or reduce decision quality; progress must cover the whole case, including appeals and accommodation.
  • Immigration: Worker protection matters alongside migration totals. The 2023 social-care immigration inspection identified weaknesses in sponsor licensing and compliance capacity, alongside exploitation and abuse. It is evidence of a delivery risk, not a current prevalence estimate.
  • Inequality: The NAO credited improved wealthy-taxpayer compliance yield but found substantial uncertainty in the tax gap, especially offshore. HMRC later moved publication of its compliance plan from spring to the end of 2026; a plan or extra staffing is not evidence of recovered revenue.
  • Inequality: Where people live matters, and the gap at the bottom has widened: output per hour in Wales was 13% below the UK average in 1998 and 15% below in 2023, and in the North East 12% and 15% below, while London was 33% above in 1998 and 29% above in 2023.
  • Inequality: Wealth-policy decisions rely on a survey whose accreditation was suspended after quality concerns. Lower response and a changed pension valuation weaken comparisons; revised guidance and planned improvements do not themselves restore accreditation or validate a revenue estimate.
  • Inequality: Gains in health and opportunity accrue slowly and averages can hide groups that lose out, so a programme can look successful while the gaps it targets persist.
  • Inflation: The NAO finds that utility regulators have improved consumer protections, but debt, low social-tariff take-up and communication barriers persist for vulnerable consumers. Without clearer outcome measures, regulatory activity can be mistaken for improved affordability or service.
  • Benefits: PAC reported that incorrect earnings-averaging guidance had led to an estimated 26,000 carers being wrongly recorded as overpaid. DWP began reassessing affected cases in April 2026; that start does not establish completed redress.
  • Benefits: NAO found progress in reducing overpayments but called for an implementation plan that prevents errors before debt builds up and monitors adverse effects on claimants. Savings from checks alone do not demonstrate an accurate or fair service.
  • Hampshire: CQC rated Southampton’s adult social care Requires improvement. Delayed assessments and reviews, incomplete information and weak assurance sat alongside some good person-centred practice. The finding belongs to Southampton, not all 13 council areas.
  • Hampshire: Small populations and survey estimates make local change hard to measure: some area rankings rest on overlapping confidence intervals, so a pilot can look successful or failed by chance.
  • Public finances: The NAO disclaimed its opinion on the Whole of Government Accounts for a third successive year because assurance over English council data remained inadequate. This limits scrutiny of the consolidated accounts; it is not proof that all spending was wasted or that ONS borrowing statistics are invalid.
  • Public finances: Pressure has reached councils’ day-to-day budgets: 36 English councils were given in-principle exceptional financial support for 2026–27 — permission to borrow or sell assets to balance their budgets, not new grant.
  • Public finances: More went on debt interest (£108.9bn) than on net investment in public assets such as roads, schools and hospitals (£86.9bn) in 2025–26. Interest is central government’s, net of the Bank of England’s asset purchase scheme; investment is the whole public sector’s, after wear and tear.
  • Public finances: Net debt was 93.3% of GDP at the end of 2025–26, up 57.8 percentage points since 2007–08 (35.5%) and 8.8 percentage points since 2019–20 (84.5%). A larger debt means any rise in interest rates or inflation costs more.
  • Public finances: Most of the OBR’s unchanged-policy scenarios imply mounting long-term fiscal pressure. The paths depend on growth, ageing, health costs and interest rates; they are conditional projections, not a prediction of bankruptcy on a fixed date.
  • Public finances: Interest costs can jump without any policy change: on OBR sensitivities, 1 point higher RPI inflation adds about £7.0bn in a year and 1 point higher Bank Rate about £7.4bn.
  • Public finances: After Budget 2026 the OBR forecasts a £14.5bn margin against the current-budget rule in 2029–30, down from £21.7bn in November 2025 and below the £27.2bn average of earlier forecasts; it puts the chance of meeting the rule at 56%.
  • Public finances: The OBR’s October 2026 forecast puts debt interest at £123.9bn in 2026–27, up from £109.4bn in its March forecast, and £160.0bn by 2031–32. It is a forecast that moves with gilt yields, Bank Rate and inflation, not a measured outcome.
  • Public finances: The OBR forecasts spending inside the welfare cap at £207.0bn in 2029–30, £2.8bn above the cap, against a £1.9bn margin in November 2025.
  • Follow the money: Plans that bank recoveries can fund services with money that never arrives: of an estimated £10.9bn lost to fraud and error in Covid schemes, £1.8bn has been recovered.
  • Revenue options: Revenue illustrations can look more certain than their evidence: OSR questioned the ready-reckoner’s official-statistics label and requested clearer modelling uncertainty. Wealth-survey accreditation is suspended from 2020–22 and pension valuation changed, limiting comparisons and precise tax-base estimates.
  • Public procurement: Digital procurement faces concentrated supplier markets and difficult switching between cloud providers. The NAO found no shared strategic approach across government to these large suppliers in January 2025; buying a service does not remove the need for specialist commercial and digital capability.
  • Defence: No official figure says how ready the armed forces are to fight. The 2025 Strategic Defence Review describes stockpiles as inadequate and recommends publishing availability data each year; regular forces are about 30% smaller than in 2006 while real spending is about 12% higher.
  • Defence: PAC found insufficient detail to scrutinise the costs and scope of nuclear programmes beyond Dreadnought, despite nine programmes exceeding £10bn in whole-life costs. July accounts received a clean audit opinion; that does not establish programme value for money or readiness.
  • Defence: 60% of trained regular personnel reported that the impact of service life on family/personal life increased their intention to leave. This is a weighted survey response, not observed exits or a causal estimate.
  • Monarchy: Buckingham Palace reservicing encountered more asbestos than expected and additional essential remediation. Management still expects March 2027 completion, but says extra requirements would draw on the reserve if needed; a completion expectation is not a delivered outcome.
  • Brexit: The OBR assumes UK trade intensity about 15% lower and productivity about 4% lower in the long run than if the UK had stayed in the EU. This is a modelled counterfactual, not an observation, and about 64% of British adults say leaving has gone badly: a perception, not a measure.
  • Brexit: The NAO found that repeated border-control delays created uncertainty and avoidable costs, and called for clearer accountability and performance measures. This dated audit does not establish the current operating position.
  • Growth and productivity: The NAO found stronger research-infrastructure investment cases and clearer strategic priorities, but UKRI still needs to balance new capabilities with maintenance and renewal. Some existing facilities cannot serve their intended purpose, and early project optimism remains a value-for-money risk.
  • Growth and productivity: Regulators are responding to the growth duty, but the NAO found that HM Treasury and DBT lacked the data to establish a material growth impact. Clear risk trade-offs, outcome monitoring and an implementation plan are needed; reducing administrative burdens is not itself evidence of higher output.
  • Innovation: The NAO found stronger investment cases and clearer priorities, but UKRI still needed to balance new research infrastructure with maintaining and renewing existing facilities, some no longer usable for their intended purpose. Early project optimism remained a value-for-money risk.
  • AI capability and resilience: The NAO’s March 2024 audit identified value-for-money risks from unclear ownership and accountability for government AI adoption. This is a dated audit finding, not evidence that every gap remains unresolved in 2026; pilots and announcements alone do not establish service improvements.
  • AI capability and resilience: Resilience also depends on legacy systems and cyber controls. The NAO found significant control gaps and unfunded remediation for many vulnerable systems. AI adoption figures do not measure whether critical services can withstand an attack.
  • Media and information: Among 16 to 34s, about 58% rely mainly on social media for political news, the source the public rates least reliable. This is a survey of 1,529 people with a margin of about 3 points; the oldest and youngest age bands rest on small samples.
  • Media and information: Ofcom opened an investigation into Meta’s risk assessments for Instants. Commenced safety duties are not proof of compliance or reduced harm; the investigation had not established a breach.
  • Media and information: The 10 largest platforms are regulated for online safety; duties on news publisher content and content of democratic importance are not yet in force — Ofcom’s consultation on them closed on 2 October 2026 and its decisions are pending — and no UK rule covers the plurality of what feeds select.
  • Votes and seats: The voting system also needs to be accessible. The Electoral Commission’s review of the May 2026 elections recommends improving the Voter Authority Certificate; votes-to-seats comparisons alone do not capture barriers to participation.
  • Government delivery: The NAO found that shared-service delivery remained at risk from unclear central ownership, weak technical leadership and incompatible systems. This is a specific programme risk assessed before the current government took office.
  • Health: The NAO found weak commissioning and targeting of NHS Health Checks. Fewer than half the annual eligible population attended in 2023/24, and follow-up data were insufficient for routine assessment of health outcomes. These are audit-period findings, not current attendance or proof that every check prevents illness.
  • Health: Healthy life expectancy rests on a shrinking survey and an interim ONS method, so a real change of a few months may not be detectable for years.
  • Social care: Councils overspent their adult social care budgets by about £715 million in 2025-26 and more than 400,000 people were waiting for an assessment, care, a direct payment or a review. This is a sector survey of directors, not an official statistic, and the page does not state a response rate.
  • Social care: CQC identifies shortages in homecare and reablement, alongside providers returning council contracts because of costs. Its March 2025 breakdown attributes 23% of discharge delays among acute-hospital patients staying at least 14 days to social-care capacity or transfer-plan delays. This is a defined subgroup, not 23% of all occupied beds.
  • Personal debt: In May 2024, 8% of UK adults reported falling behind on or missing bills or credit payments in at least three of the previous six months. This survey finding measures repeated difficulty, not recorded loan defaults.
  • Personal debt: The same survey classed 24% of UK adults as having low financial resilience in May 2024: repeated payment difficulty, a heavy burden from bills or credit, or very limited savings. This overlaps with people missing payments; the percentages cannot be added.
  • Personal debt: If income falls or essential costs rise, repayments that were manageable can become unaffordable. A temporary payment arrangement may not solve a lasting gap between income and bills.
  • Personal debt: Misleading debt adverts can steer people towards unsuitable arrangements or unexpected fees. A promise to write off debt is not evidence that a solution suits the person.
  • Cost of living: Renting the average private home takes 50% of a median full-time earner’s take-home pay, against 32% 30 years ago. The two years come from different rent sources, so the comparison is approximate.
  • Cost of living: Home ownership among households headed by 25 to 34 year olds fell from 58.6% in 2003-04 to 47.7% in 2024-25. Young adults still living with parents are not counted, so the fall in young people with a home of their own may be larger.
  • Cost of living: If house prices and rents keep rising faster than take-home pay, the cost falls on people who have not yet bought, mostly younger adults and renters, while outright owners are largely shielded. The gap between those with a home and those without can keep widening.
Chichester · 5 local issues

Local delivery suggestions have not received a cost-benefit appraisal; no national option rating is implied.

  • Housing pressure reaches beyond house prices

    Nightly-paid temporary accommodation held 106 households in June 2026. This is one part of temporary accommodation, not all homelessness.

    Local evidence · Proposed response
  • Growth needs working water infrastructure

    Housing delivery must keep pace with wastewater capacity and protection of the harbour.

    Local evidence · Proposed response
  • District totals can conceal local changes

    Police neighbourhood trends differ within Chichester. City-centre activity cannot be inferred from the district average.

    Local evidence · Proposed response
  • Plans need visible delivery milestones

    Several regeneration schemes remain in design or feasibility in the reviewed evidence.

    Local evidence · Proposed response
  • Recycling needs a new baseline

    42.3% of household waste was reused, recycled or composted in 2025/26. Food-waste collections began near the end of that year.

    Local evidence · Proposed response
Housing · 15 issues
NHS · 10 issues
Education · 6 issues
SEND · 9 issues
Energy and bills · 7 issues
Pensions · 7 issues
Political funding · 5 issues
Economy and cost of living · 9 issues
Crime · 12 issues
  • Weakness: About eight in ten adults say crime nationally has gone up, up from about six in ten ten years earlier, while Crime Survey crime excluding fraud fell about a third. A gap between belief and measurement can pull policy towards perceived rather than measured risks; worry about fraud and antisocial behaviour remains real and is measured separately.

    Assessment gap: No canonical action is explicitly linked to this issue. Possible responses still need a traceable assessment; this is not evidence that no response exists.

    England and Wales · Year ending March 2026 · Moderate confidence

    Domain evidence →Office for National Statistics · Table B1

  • Weakness: More officers do not automatically create a more effective response. The NAO found earlier productivity initiatives had not produced sustained change across forces, with inconsistent standards, patchy technology adoption and limited evidence of what works.

    Assessment gap: No canonical action is explicitly linked to this issue. Possible responses still need a traceable assessment; this is not evidence that no response exists.

    England and Wales · NAO audit, 3 November 2025 · Moderate confidence

    Domain evidence →National Audit Office · Conclusions

  • Weakness: 40.9% of adults experienced or witnessed local antisocial behaviour. This includes witnesses, not just direct victims. An April 2025 questionnaire-context change inflated part of the increase, so the full rise cannot be interpreted as behavioural change.

    Assessment gap: No canonical action is explicitly linked to this issue. Possible responses still need a traceable assessment; this is not evidence that no response exists.

    England and Wales · YE Mar 2026 · Moderate confidence

    Domain evidence →Office for National Statistics · ONS methodology investigation; appendix Table D1

  • Weakness: The NAO’s July 2026 audit found gaps in monitoring, information and responses to breaches. Better supplier performance alone does not establish that the public is protected. Expansion needs reliable records, timely fitting and a staffed response to breaches. Tag counts are an input; monitoring coverage, response times and subsequent harm are the tests. The audit does not estimate the crime prevented by an additional tag.

    Assessment gap: No canonical action is explicitly linked to this issue. Possible responses still need a traceable assessment; this is not evidence that no response exists.

    England and Wales · 2026-07-10 · Moderate confidence

    Domain evidence →National Audit Office · Conclusions

  • Weakness: The NAO reported that about half of people in prison had an identified drug problem in April 2025. Its February 2026 audit found that prison operations and health services were not consistently working together. Security, treatment and recovery need to work together. The audit could not establish an overall value-for-money estimate; the prevalence figure is not an estimate of treatment effectiveness. Track access to treatment, continuity after release and harms alongside capacity.

    Assessment gap: No canonical action is explicitly linked to this issue. Possible responses still need a traceable assessment; this is not evidence that no response exists.

    England and Wales · 2026-02-04 · Moderate confidence

    Domain evidence →National Audit Office · Background and conclusions

  • Weakness: Domestic abuse and sexual violence need their own outcome tracking: they are outside the headline survey crime total. The NAO’s January 2025 audit found that the earlier cross-government strategies had not improved victim outcomes.

    Assessment gap: No canonical action is explicitly linked to this issue. Possible responses still need a traceable assessment; this is not evidence that no response exists.

    England and Wales · NAO audit, January 2025 · High confidence

    Domain evidence →National Audit Office · Conclusions

  • Weakness: Fraud is the most common crime the survey measures: 4.5 million incidents and 3.8 million adult victims in 2025–26, 47% of all survey incidents — up from 3.7 million incidents in 2019–20.

    Linked proposals: Stop scams across banks, platforms and telecoms

    England and Wales · 2019–20 and 2025–26 · High confidence

    Domain evidence →Office for National Statistics · Table A1a (fraud incidents and victims)

  • Weakness: Only 8.5% of police-recorded crimes led to a charge or summons in 2025–26, against 15.5% in 2014–15.

    Assessment gap: No canonical action is explicitly linked to this issue. Possible responses still need a traceable assessment; this is not evidence that no response exists.

    England and Wales · 2014–15 and 2025–26 · High confidence

    Domain evidence →Home Office · Table 1.3

  • Weakness: Cases wait longer to be heard: 80,829 criminal cases were open in the Crown Court at the end of June 2026, the most on record, against 38,341 in December 2019.

    Assessment gap: No canonical action is explicitly linked to this issue. Possible responses still need a traceable assessment; this is not evidence that no response exists.

    England and Wales · December 2019 and Jun 2026 · High confidence

    Domain evidence →Ministry of Justice · Table C1 (Crown Court open caseload)

  • Weakness: Prisons are close to full: 86,779 people were in prison on 5 October 2026 against a useable capacity of 89,012 places, leaving 2,233 free — 97.5% full.

    Assessment gap: No canonical action is explicitly linked to this issue. Possible responses still need a traceable assessment; this is not evidence that no response exists.

    England and Wales · Monday 5 October 2026 · High confidence

    Domain evidence →Ministry of Justice and HM Prison and Probation Service · Population and Capacity Briefing: Population; Useable Operational Capacity; Headroom (Total column)

  • Risk: Scams adapt faster than controls: the 2023 Fraud Strategy aimed to cut fraud to 10% below 2019 levels by the end of that Parliament, yet survey fraud rose instead.

    Linked proposals: Stop scams across banks, platforms and telecoms

    Moderate confidence

    Domain evidence →Home Office · Executive summary paragraph 3; paragraph 154Office for National Statistics · Table A1a

  • Risk: Poorly targeted enforcement can move crime or damage trust: the main hot spots review did not assess community effects, and English results swung from a 7% fall in 2021–22 to no significant effect in 2022–23.

    Linked proposals: Target repeat violence at places where harm clusters

    Moderate confidence

    Domain evidence →College of Policing · Toolkit entry “Effect” and “Moderators” (archived copy)Home Office · Section 2.2

Jobs and pay · 7 issues
Immigration · 6 issues
Inequality · 6 issues
Inflation · 4 issues
Benefits · 5 issues
Hampshire · 6 issues
Public finances · 12 issues
Follow the money · 4 issues
Revenue options · 6 issues
Public procurement · 5 issues
Defence · 7 issues
Monarchy · 5 issues
Brexit · 6 issues
Growth and productivity · 9 issues
Innovation · 5 issues
AI capability and resilience · 6 issues
Media and information · 6 issues
Votes and seats · 4 issues
Government delivery · 4 issues
Manifesto tracker · 3 issues
Party comparisons · 3 issues
Polling · 3 issues
Policy scenarios · 2 issues
  • Weakness: The wider workbench is unavailable: its dials mixed estimates from different years and definitions with no stated baseline or range, so most policy questions have no interactive tool.

    Linked proposals: Make policy models reproducible before expanding the workbench (private preview)

    High confidence

    Domain evidence → (private preview)HM Treasury · Chapters 6–9 (the standard the dials did not meet)

  • Risk: False precision, stale tax and benefit baselines after a fiscal event, and extrapolation beyond supported inputs can mislead users even when the arithmetic is right.

    Linked proposals: Make policy models reproducible before expanding the workbench (private preview)

    Moderate confidence

    Domain evidence → (private preview)HM Treasury · Optimism bias; uncertainty

Health · 10 issues
Social care · 9 issues
Personal debt · 4 issues
  • Weakness: In May 2024, 8% of UK adults reported falling behind on or missing bills or credit payments in at least three of the previous six months. This survey finding measures repeated difficulty, not recorded loan defaults.

    Assessment gap: No canonical action is explicitly linked to this issue. Possible responses still need a traceable assessment; this is not evidence that no response exists.

    United Kingdom, adults aged 18 and over · May 2024 · Moderate confidence

    Domain evidence →Financial Conduct Authority · Figure 3.9, all UK adults row; question K2

  • Weakness: The same survey classed 24% of UK adults as having low financial resilience in May 2024: repeated payment difficulty, a heavy burden from bills or credit, or very limited savings. This overlaps with people missing payments; the percentages cannot be added.

    Assessment gap: No canonical action is explicitly linked to this issue. Possible responses still need a traceable assessment; this is not evidence that no response exists.

    United Kingdom, adults aged 18 and over · May 2024 · Moderate confidence

    Domain evidence →Financial Conduct Authority · Figures 3.6 and 3.9

  • Risk: If income falls or essential costs rise, repayments that were manageable can become unaffordable. A temporary payment arrangement may not solve a lasting gap between income and bills.

    Assessment gap: No canonical action is explicitly linked to this issue. Possible responses still need a traceable assessment; this is not evidence that no response exists.

    United Kingdom · Moderate confidence

    Domain evidence →Financial Conduct Authority · Working out a budget; Support from your lender

  • Risk: Misleading debt adverts can steer people towards unsuitable arrangements or unexpected fees. A promise to write off debt is not evidence that a solution suits the person.

    Assessment gap: No canonical action is explicitly linked to this issue. Possible responses still need a traceable assessment; this is not evidence that no response exists.

    United Kingdom · Moderate confidence

    Domain evidence →Financial Conduct Authority · How some debt products are advertised

Cost of living · 7 issues

The action plan

What could move the needle?

Choose an outcome, then an option, and follow it all the way to the evidence.

The headline’s shortages — skilled people, investment and delivery capacity — recur in homes, healthcare and growth (the evidence behind it). The four outcomes below are where options to tackle them are assessed.

Growth and prosperity can be read through one lens: slow productivity growth. The productivity SWOT and action plan groups these same options by what they aim to move and puts them in a proposed order.

Reviewed editorial selection, 7 October 2026 — not a ranking. Each assessment is provisional (6 October 2026 review): not a business case, not government policy.

How these 41 options work

Tags describe mechanisms in the existing records. They overlap, count each distinct option once per tag, and are not evidence of political neutrality. A tax reform is not automatically a tax rise; a service option is not a costed spending commitment. These records do not establish a comparable spending-restraint total.

  • Service access: 8
  • Skills: 3
  • Public investment: 1
  • Delivery efficiency: 1
  • Housing delivery: 2
  • Infrastructure: 2
  • Research and adoption: 2
  • Trade rules: 1
  • Institutional powers: 1
  • Service capacity: 4
  • Price regulation: 1
  • Prevention: 6
  • Enforcement: 2
  • Tax collection: 1
  • Tax design: 2
  • Housing investment: 1
  • Benefit take-up: 1
  • Targets and measurement: 1
  • Utility regulation: 1
  • Demand management: 1
  • Operational resilience: 2
  • Transport access: 1
  • Appraisal: 2
  • Evaluation: 4

Analytical assurance

How far can these assessments take us?

These are provisional appraisals for public scrutiny. They help identify promising options and the work needed before a decision. They are not completed business cases.

all ten criteria scored
0 / 51
whole-life costs recorded
0 / 51
scope verified in the record
0 / 51

The 8 October analytical follow-up specifies a proposed intervention, outcome test, costing approach and safeguards for 51 of these 51 candidates. Open “What the evidence supports” on an option to read it. These proposals do not replace the attributed scores or establish a funded business case.

Independent analytical assurance and final sign-off are not yet recorded. Automated checks verify calculations, references and consistent rendering; they cannot establish that an intervention will work or replace independent judgement.

Review the criteria, gaps and assurance process →

10 options in the review’s order. Plus 3 related options, each on its own record and taking no list slot, placed after the option each builds on.Editorial selection · not a numerical ranking

  • Delivery risk: AmberFurther checks needed

    Service access

    Fidelity reviews, NHS integration and an impact evaluation inside Connect to Work.

    Who delivers it
    DWP, health commissioners and local employment partners
    Cost
    Partial: some lines costed, no whole-life total; indicative costing or partial funding
    Evidence
    Provisional assessment; sources and limitations in the detail below.
    How to judge progress
    Sustained employment, earnings, health and wellbeing versus a comparator.

    Topic: Jobs & payEvidence trail for Offer evidence-based employment support alongside healthcare →

  • Delivery risk: AmberFurther checks needed

    Skills

    Who delivers it
    DfE, skills bodies, colleges and employers; nation-specific systems
    Cost
    Not established; not identified
    Evidence
    Provisional assessment; sources and limitations in the detail below.
    How to judge progress
    Completions, sustained trade employment and employer vacancies.

    Topic: EducationEvidence trail for Skills in the building trades →

  • Related option · builds on Skills in the building trades

    Delivery risk: AmberFurther checks needed

    Skills · Appraisal

    Appraise a defined adult or technical training cohort with employer placements in a verified non-construction shortage.

    Who delivers it
    skills bodies, colleges and employers
    Cost
    Not established; not established in review
    Evidence
    Provisional assessment; sources and limitations in the detail below.
    How to judge progress
    Define and baseline the outcome described in delivery requirements before approval.

    Topic: Jobs & payEvidence trail for Employer-linked shortage training beyond construction →

  • Delivery risk: AmberFurther checks needed

    Public investment

    Approved-versus-aspirational status, milestones and completed assets in the infrastructure pipeline.

    Who delivers it
    Treasury, infrastructure bodies, departments and devolved governments
    Cost
    Partial: some lines costed, no whole-life total; programme route, not allocated
    Evidence
    Provisional assessment; sources and limitations in the detail below.
    How to judge progress
    Milestones, outturn cost and service outcomes for selected projects.

    Topic: Growth & productivityEvidence trail for Turn investment promises into a deliverable pipeline →

  • Delivery risk: AmberFurther checks needed

    Delivery efficiency

    Who delivers it
    Contracting authorities and Cabinet Office
    Cost
    Not established; not established in review
    Evidence
    Provisional assessment; sources and limitations in the detail below.
    How to judge progress
    Quality-adjusted service delivered, whole-life costs and supplier performance.

    Topic: Follow the moneyEvidence trail for Deliver what is already funded →

  • Delivery risk: RedFurther checks needed

    Housing delivery

    Who delivers it
    Planning authorities, housing bodies, developers and utilities; devolved responsibility
    Cost
    Not established; not established in review
    Evidence
    Provisional assessment; sources and limitations in the detail below.
    How to judge progress
    Net additional completed and occupied homes, affordability and displacement.

    Topic: HousingEvidence trail for Turn housing permissions into completed homes →

  • Delivery risk: RedFurther checks needed

    Infrastructure

    Who delivers it
    Energy departments, system/network operators and regulators
    Cost
    Not established; not identified
    Evidence
    Provisional assessment; sources and limitations in the detail below.
    How to judge progress
    Time to energisation, reliability and industrial costs; household bill impacts.

    Topic: EnergyEvidence trail for Connect the power Britain needs →

  • Delivery risk: AmberFurther checks needed

    Research and adoption

    Who delivers it
    Business/research departments, UKRI and public buyers
    Cost
    Not established; not established in review
    Evidence
    Provisional assessment; sources and limitations in the detail below.
    How to judge progress
    Additional adoption, productivity and commercial outcomes versus comparable firms.

    Topic: InnovationEvidence trail for Turn research into products and adoption →

  • Related option · builds on Turn research into products and adoption

    Delivery risk: AmberFurther checks needed

    Research and adoption · Evaluation

    Test targeted diagnostic advice and adoption support for existing firms, with a comparator and a defined productivity outcome.

    Who delivers it
    business department, local business-support bodies and delivery partners
    Cost
    Not established; not identified
    Evidence
    Provisional assessment; sources and limitations in the detail below.
    How to judge progress
    Define and baseline the outcome described in delivery requirements before approval.

    Topic: InnovationEvidence trail for Existing-firm management and technology adoption →

  • Delivery risk: RedFurther checks needed

    Trade rules

    Conclude the SPS agreement.

    Who delivers it
    UK government and EU counterparts; relevant devolved authorities
    Cost
    Not established; not a spending proposal
    Evidence
    Provisional assessment; sources and limitations in the detail below.
    How to judge progress
    Border time/cost, trade and consumer prices, with external shocks separated.

    Topic: BrexitEvidence trail for Cut EU trade friction with a scoped food-and-farm deal →

  • Delivery risk: RedFurther checks needed

    Institutional powers

    Who delivers it
    Central government, mayors/local authorities; nation-specific arrangements
    Cost
    Not established; not established in review
    Evidence
    Provisional assessment; sources and limitations in the detail below.
    How to judge progress
    Access to jobs, productivity, earnings and inclusion in defined places.

    Topic: Growth & productivityEvidence trail for Test local powers to improve jobs and pay →

  • Related option · builds on Test local powers to improve jobs and pay

    Delivery risk: AmberFurther checks needed

    Transport access · Appraisal

    Appraise one defined corridor/service intervention where journey reliability, hours or cost constrain access to jobs.

    Who delivers it
    transport authorities/operators and relevant national bodies
    Cost
    Not established; not identified
    Evidence
    Provisional assessment; sources and limitations in the detail below.
    How to judge progress
    Define and baseline the outcome described in delivery requirements before approval.

    Topic: Growth & productivityEvidence trail for Transport access to jobs →

  • Delivery risk: AmberFurther checks needed

    Service capacity

    Test additional capacity, affordability and parental employment.

    Who delivers it
    councils, DfE and providers in England; separate devolved arrangements
    Cost
    Not established; not identified
    Evidence
    Provisional assessment; sources and limitations in the detail below.
    How to judge progress
    Define and baseline the outcome described in delivery requirements before approval.

    Topic: EducationEvidence trail for Make childcare places work for working parents →

10 options in the review’s order. Plus 1 related option, on its own record and taking no list slot.Editorial selection · not a numerical ranking

  • Delivery risk: AmberFurther checks needed

    Price regulation

    Use the Scottish evaluation to appraise an English policy.

    Who delivers it
    DHSC, Parliament, public health and enforcement bodies
    Cost
    Not established; not a spending proposal
    Evidence
    Provisional assessment; sources and limitations in the detail below.
    How to judge progress
    Alcohol-attributable deaths and harm, consumption and household hardship.

    Topic: HealthEvidence trail for Introduce minimum unit pricing for alcohol in England →

  • Delivery risk: AmberFurther checks needed

    Prevention

    Target home adaptations and evaluate independence and care needs.

    Who delivers it
    Councils, housing providers and health/care commissioners
    Cost
    Not established; not established in review
    Evidence
    Provisional assessment; sources and limitations in the detail below.
    How to judge progress
    Falls and independence separately; injuries, unmet care and 91-day outcomes.

    Topic: Social careEvidence trail for Help older people stay safe at home →

  • Delivery risk: AmberFurther checks needed

    Service capacity

    Evaluated Sure Start features, weakest-access areas first, and a phased, evaluable roll-out of the family hubs.

    Who delivers it
    DfE, councils and health partners in England
    Cost
    Partial: some lines costed, no whole-life total; programme route, not allocated
    Evidence
    Provisional assessment; sources and limitations in the detail below.
    How to judge progress
    Child development, family outcomes and later health/attainment.

    Topic: HealthEvidence trail for Build family hubs around what worked →

  • Delivery risk: AmberFurther checks needed

    Prevention · Enforcement

    Who delivers it
    Police, banks, platforms and relevant regulators
    Cost
    Not established; not established in review
    Evidence
    Provisional assessment; sources and limitations in the detail below.
    How to judge progress
    Victim losses and repeat victimisation; false flags, displacement and privacy.

    Topic: Crime & safetyEvidence trail for Safer streets, fewer scams →

  • Delivery risk: AmberFurther checks needed

    Service access

    A comparison-based evaluation and a route for greater needs.

    Who delivers it
    Education and health commissioners, schools and providers
    Cost
    Not established; programme route, not allocated
    Evidence
    Provisional assessment; sources and limitations in the detail below.
    How to judge progress
    Symptoms, functioning, attendance and equitable access; unmet severe need.

    Topic: HealthEvidence trail for Test mental-health support in schools →

  • Delivery risk: RedFurther checks needed

    Service capacity

    Who delivers it
    DHSC, Treasury, councils and care providers; devolved systems separately
    Cost
    Not established; not identified
    Evidence
    Provisional assessment; sources and limitations in the detail below.
    How to judge progress
    Care actually delivered, unmet need, continuity and carer outcomes.

    Topic: Social careEvidence trail for A costed social-care capacity plan →

  • Delivery risk: RedFurther checks needed

    Service access

    Who delivers it
    DfE, councils, schools and health commissioners in England
    Cost
    Not established; not established in review
    Evidence
    Provisional assessment; sources and limitations in the detail below.
    How to judge progress
    Timely and delivered support, child outcomes and family experience.

    Topic: SENDEvidence trail for Give children special-needs support on time →

  • Delivery risk: RedFurther checks needed

    Service capacity

    Who delivers it
    NHS commissioners/providers; nation-specific systems
    Cost
    Not established; not identified
    Evidence
    Provisional assessment; sources and limitations in the detail below.
    How to judge progress
    Patient waits and health outcomes, not hub throughput alone.

    Topic: NHSEvidence trail for Cut treatment waits and improve patients’ health →

  • Delivery risk: AmberFurther checks needed

    Service access

    Close the gap between effective treatment and people receiving it.

    Who delivers it
    NHS commissioners and providers; jurisdiction-specific
    Cost
    Not established; not identified
    Evidence
    Provisional assessment; sources and limitations in the detail below.
    How to judge progress
    Define and baseline the outcome described in delivery requirements before approval.

    Topic: HealthEvidence trail for Get effective depression treatment to adults missing out →

  • Delivery risk: AmberFurther checks needed

    Prevention · Service access

    Expand access, measure additional quits and track who is still missing out.

    Who delivers it
    public-health commissioners and health providers
    Cost
    Not established; not identified
    Evidence
    Provisional assessment; sources and limitations in the detail below.
    How to judge progress
    Define and baseline the outcome described in delivery requirements before approval.

    Topic: HealthSelected · details below ↓

  • Related option · an evaluation candidate, not linked to a listed option

    Delivery risk: AmberFurther checks needed

    Service access · Evaluation

    Test a specified facilitated social-connection intervention for an identified group, using validated loneliness measures and a comparison group.

    Who delivers it
    councils, public health and voluntary-sector partners
    Cost
    Not established; not established in review
    Evidence
    Provisional assessment; sources and limitations in the detail below.
    How to judge progress
    Define and baseline the outcome described in delivery requirements before approval.

    Topic: Social careEvidence trail for Targeted loneliness support →

10 options in the review’s order. Plus 2 related options, each on its own record and taking no list slot, placed after the option each builds on.Editorial selection · not a numerical ranking

  • Delivery risk: AmberFurther checks needed

    Tax collection

    Who delivers it
    HMRC and Treasury
    Cost
    Not established; not identified
    Evidence
    Provisional assessment; sources and limitations in the detail below.
    How to judge progress
    Collected additional revenue net of costs, error and disputes.

    Topic: Follow the moneyEvidence trail for Collect the tax already due →

  • Delivery risk: AmberFurther checks needed

    Housing delivery

    A buy/build/lease comparison against temporary accommodation, and awards tied to lettings.

    Who delivers it
    Councils and housing providers; relevant national housing bodies
    Cost
    Partial: some lines costed, no whole-life total; programme route, not allocated
    Evidence
    Provisional assessment; sources and limitations in the detail below.
    How to judge progress
    Sustained settled housing, repeat homelessness and household wellbeing.

    Topic: HousingEvidence trail for Give families in temporary accommodation a settled home →

  • Related option · builds on Give families in temporary accommodation a settled home

    Delivery risk: AmberFurther checks needed

    Prevention · Evaluation

    Test early rent-arrears/legal advice and targeted assistance for a defined at-risk cohort before homelessness occurs.

    Who delivers it
    councils, housing/advice providers and landlords
    Cost
    Not established; not identified
    Evidence
    Provisional assessment; sources and limitations in the detail below.
    How to judge progress
    Define and baseline the outcome described in delivery requirements before approval.

    Topic: HousingEvidence trail for Prevent avoidable loss of rented homes →

  • Delivery risk: AmberFurther checks needed

    Tax design

    Who delivers it
    Treasury, HMRC and Parliament
    Cost
    Not established; not a spending proposal
    Evidence
    Provisional assessment; sources and limitations in the detail below.
    How to judge progress
    Net receipts, incidence and behavioural response.

    Topic: Tax optionsEvidence trail for Close capital-tax reliefs rather than raise rates →

  • Delivery risk: AmberFurther checks needed

    Housing investment

    Health-linked selection, independent inspection before payment and an evaluation inside the Warm Homes grants.

    Who delivers it
    Energy/housing departments, councils and installers
    Cost
    Partial: some lines costed, no whole-life total; programme route, not allocated
    Evidence
    Provisional assessment; sources and limitations in the detail below.
    How to judge progress
    Measured energy use, comfort, health and defects; household costs.

    Topic: EnergyEvidence trail for Warm homes, inspected before payment →

  • Delivery risk: AmberFurther checks needed

    Benefit take-up

    Assisted applications for people likely to be entitled to Pension Credit.

    Who delivers it
    DWP, councils and advice providers
    Cost
    Partial: some lines costed, no whole-life total; not identified
    Evidence
    Provisional assessment; sources and limitations in the detail below.
    How to judge progress
    Successful sustained take-up, disposable income, errors and claimant experience.

    Topic: BenefitsEvidence trail for Claim what people are owed →

  • Delivery risk: AmberFurther checks needed

    Targets and measurement

    Who delivers it
    Treasury, DWP and relevant service departments/devolved governments
    Cost
    Not established; not established in review
    Evidence
    Provisional assessment; sources and limitations in the detail below.
    How to judge progress
    Poverty depth, material deprivation and child outcomes after housing costs.

    Topic: BenefitsEvidence trail for A child-poverty target and essentials test →

  • Delivery risk: AmberFurther checks needed

    Tax design

    Who delivers it
    Treasury, valuation bodies and relevant governments
    Cost
    Not established; not established in review
    Evidence
    Provisional assessment; sources and limitations in the detail below.
    How to judge progress
    Household liabilities, liquidity hardship, mobility and revenue.

    Topic: Tax optionsEvidence trail for Property and land tax reform →

  • Delivery risk: RedFurther checks needed

    Utility regulation

    Who delivers it
    Sector regulators, Treasury, relevant departments and infrastructure bodies
    Cost
    Not established; not established in review
    Evidence
    Provisional assessment; sources and limitations in the detail below.
    How to judge progress
    Whole-life customer costs, reliability, investment and taxpayer exposure.

    Topic: EnergyEvidence trail for Change how utilities fund investment and share the risks →

  • Delivery risk: AmberFurther checks needed

    Enforcement

    Who delivers it
    Employment departments, employers, enforcement bodies and skills partners
    Cost
    Not established; not identified
    Evidence
    Provisional assessment; sources and limitations in the detail below.
    How to judge progress
    Hourly and weekly pay, hours, sustained employment and progression.

    Topic: Jobs & payEvidence trail for Target minimum-wage enforcement where underpayment is highest, and test whether it works →

  • Related option · builds on Target minimum-wage enforcement where underpayment is highest, and test whether it works

    Delivery risk: AmberFurther checks needed

    Service access · Evaluation

    Test a defined assessment-to-adjustment improvement for workers facing verified delays, distinguishing employer duties from public support.

    Who delivers it
    DWP, employers and support providers
    Cost
    Not established; not identified
    Evidence
    Provisional assessment; sources and limitations in the detail below.
    How to judge progress
    Define and baseline the outcome described in delivery requirements before approval.

    Topic: Jobs & payEvidence trail for Timely workplace adjustments for disabled workers →

  • Delivery risk: AmberFurther checks needed

    Service access · Skills

    Reach eligible children with evidence-based language support.

    Who delivers it
    schools, education bodies and councils as appropriate
    Cost
    Not established; programme route, not allocated
    Evidence
    Provisional assessment; sources and limitations in the detail below.
    How to judge progress
    Define and baseline the outcome described in delivery requirements before approval.

    Topic: EducationEvidence trail for Close the early-language support gap →

An appraisal queue, not a fourth list of ten: each needs a risk, exposure, dependency and lifetime-cost appraisal.Editorial selection · not a numerical ranking

  • Delivery risk: RedFurther checks needed

    Infrastructure

    Who delivers it
    Energy departments, system/network operators and regulators
    Cost
    Not established; not identified
    Evidence
    Provisional assessment; sources and limitations in the detail below.
    How to judge progress
    Time to energisation, reliability and industrial costs; household bill impacts.

    Topic: EnergyEvidence trail for Connect the power Britain needs →

  • Delivery risk: AmberFurther checks needed

    Demand management

    Target a defined unmetered cohort in designated stressed areas.

    Who delivers it
    Water companies, regulator and government within relevant English powers.
    Cost
    Not established; not identified
    Evidence
    Provisional assessment; sources and limitations in the detail below.
    How to judge progress
    Litres per person/day, arrears and essential-use hardship over 12–24 months; tariff take-up.

    Topic: Follow the moneyEvidence trail for Protect water supplies and low-income households →

  • Delivery risk: AmberFurther checks needed

    Infrastructure · Prevention

    Separate maintenance of existing protection from long-lead new defences and assess each against local exposure.

    Who delivers it
    Defra, Environment Agency and local partners in England.
    Cost
    Partial: some lines costed, no whole-life total; programme route, not allocated
    Evidence
    Provisional assessment; sources and limitations in the detail below.
    How to judge progress
    Asset condition; modelled protection standard; observed flood harm when events occur.

    Topic: HousingEvidence trail for Protect flood-defence maintenance and appraise schemes by risk →

  • Delivery risk: AmberFurther checks needed

    Prevention

    Assess overheating in selected care settings and homes, then commission proportionate cooling, shading and response plans.

    Who delivers it
    Health/care providers, councils and landlords with public-health advice.
    Cost
    Not established; not identified
    Evidence
    Provisional assessment; sources and limitations in the detail below.
    How to judge progress
    Indoor exposure, response readiness and heat-related harm with weather-adjusted interpretation.

    Topic: Social careEvidence trail for Make heat protection operational in vulnerable settings →

  • Delivery risk: AmberFurther checks needed

    Operational resilience

    Select a critical service and test usable backups, data export and a proportionate recovery route.

    Who delivers it
    Service owners, procurement teams and relevant regulators.
    Cost
    Not established; not established in review
    Evidence
    Provisional assessment; sources and limitations in the detail below.
    How to judge progress
    Recovery time, data loss and continuity under a rehearsed disruption.

    Topic: TechnologyEvidence trail for Make cloud exit and continuity work in practice →

  • Delivery risk: RedFurther checks needed

    Operational resilience

    Identify priority maintenance, stock and specialist-retention gaps through appropriately protected assurance.

    Who delivers it
    MOD, Treasury and parliamentary scrutiny bodies.
    Cost
    Not established; not established in review
    Evidence
    Provisional assessment; sources and limitations in the detail below.
    How to judge progress
    Appropriate readiness and retention assurance, with sensitive detail protected.

    Topic: DefenceEvidence trail for Protect defence sustainment and retention through risk appraisal →

The first cards shown are the approved design’s editorial examples, not ranked positions.

Make effective smoking treatment reach more people

Delivery risk: AmberFurther checks needed

Not stated in the review record; treated as a provisional single-reviewer assessment, not an approved business case.

Full evidence trail →

What the evidence supports—and the next decision

Established cessation treatment provides a stronger basis than a generic prevention promise; reach and sustained quits still determine additional benefit.

AI-assisted analytical follow-up · 8 October 2026. Proposed appraisal design; the attributed scores below are unchanged. No funding or delivery agreement is implied.

Define the change
Expand access for a defined underserved adult group using suitable NICE-recommended support and treatment beyond current provision.
Test whether it works
Sustained quits, relapse and adverse effects by deprivation and other relevant groups; distinguish quit attempts from lasting outcomes.
Establish the cost
Adviser time, treatment, referral and follow-up; estimate health gains separately from cashable NHS savings.
Protect against harm
Use clinically appropriate choices and informed consent; this assessment does not include an uncosted cardiovascular-prevention package.

Read with the outcome evidence and sources in the full assessment. Monitoring proposals are not existing baseline measurements. A numerical benefit or cost score needs evidence for the defined increment, not just the scale of the problem.

Who and where

Adults aged 18–64 in routine and manual occupations in England who smoke (16.6% smoked in 2025; about 1.2 million people on ONS weighted counts). (from the action record)

Scope assessed: Expand access to established behavioural support plus suitable cessation treatment for a defined underserved adult group; cardiovascular prevention is a separate, unscored option.

Jurisdiction: England. Stop smoking services are devolved: Quit Your Way Scotland, Help Me Quit (Wales) and Stop Smoking NI. The Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 applies UK-wide.

Scope not yet verified against current delivery.

The problem behind it

Britain is losing healthy years.

Health priority: Help people stay healthy for longer and reduce avoidable gaps in health.

The headline of the Health page, as context: it describes the topic, not necessarily the group this option would reach.

The deep dive

No chapter is recorded for this option; its evidence is on the Health page.

What would need to happen

Verify service gap and current funding; cost adviser time, treatment, referral and follow-up. Measure sustained quits and inequalities, with adverse effects monitored. Proposed owners: public-health commissioners and health providers.

Who would act

public-health commissioners and health providers (proposed, unverified).

Powers: needs a decision or allocation. Capacity: unverified.

  • England: Councils (public health duty, Health and Social Care Act 2012 s.12) with integrated care boards and the Department of Health and Social Care
  • Scotland: not assessed
  • Wales: not assessed
  • Northern Ireland: not assessed

How we would know

Measure: Define and baseline the outcome described in delivery requirements before approval.

Source: not yet named. Baseline: not yet established.

Measures already on the topic page; not necessarily this option’s own metric.

Timeframe

First meaningful outcome (reviewer’s rating): Within one year.

No first-90-days plan recorded.

One shared assessment · ten criteria, 0–3

  • 3ScScale and severity: 3 of 3
  • 2AdIncrement beyond baseline: 2 of 3
  • 2EvConfidence in the proposed action: 2 of 3
  • 2BnExpected incremental benefit: 2 of 3
  • 2HmResidual harms: 2 of 3
  • ?CoIncremental affordability: Not established
  • 2CaDelivery capacity: 2 of 3
  • 3FaDistribution: 3 of 3
  • 3TiMeaningful first outcome: 3 of 3
  • 2RdReadiness: 2 of 3

“?” = not established. An unknown is never counted as 0.

Each rating, its definition and the reviewer’s reason
  1. Scale and severity (Sc): 3 of 3 — Severe harm across a broad population

    Scale: 0 No material problem · 1 Limited harm/narrow reach · 2 Serious harm to a defined group or widespread moderate harm · 3 Severe harm across a broad population

  2. Increment beyond baseline (Ad): 2 of 3 — Specific material change to existing delivery

    Scale: 0 No increment · 1 Small or poorly supported increment · 2 Specific material change to existing delivery · 3 Substantial clearly distinct increment; not novelty alone

  3. Confidence in the proposed action (Ev): 2 of 3 — Relevant evaluated evidence with limitations

    Scale: 0 No effect evaluation · 1 Indirect, mixed, modelled or weak causal support · 2 Relevant evaluated evidence with limitations · 3 Consistent strong evidence for the specified intervention/outcome

  4. Expected incremental benefit (Bn): 2 of 3 — Material for the target population

    Scale: 0 Negligible · 1 Small · 2 Material for the target population · 3 Large for the target population; no multi-domain bonus

  5. Residual harms (Hm): 2 of 3 — Manageable harm with specified safeguards

    Scale: 0 Unacceptable serious harm · 1 Material harm/unresolved mitigation · 2 Manageable harm with specified safeguards · 3 Low assessed residual harm

  6. Incremental affordability (Co): Not established

    Scale: 0 No credible route for a large commitment · 1 Major unfunded commitment · 2 Costed affordable route subject to allocation · 3 Demonstrably small affordable incremental public cost

  7. Delivery capacity (Ca): 2 of 3 — Stretched but plausibly obtainable

    Scale: 0 Unavailable within scope · 1 Binding scarce resource · 2 Stretched but plausibly obtainable · 3 Little scarce capacity required

  8. Distribution (Fa): 3 of 3 — Benefits concentrated on disadvantaged people with assessed burdens

    Scale: 0 Strongly regressive · 1 Material disadvantage to vulnerable groups · 2 Mixed or broadly neutral with safeguards · 3 Benefits concentrated on disadvantaged people with assessed burdens

  9. Meaningful first outcome (Ti): 3 of 3 — Within one year

    Scale: 0 Ten years or more · 1 More than three but less than ten years · 2 More than one and up to three years · 3 Within one year

  10. Readiness (Rd): 2 of 3 — Named commissioning/allocation/coordination step

    Scale: 0 Undefined enabling steps · 1 Legislation/external agreement or major enabling work · 2 Named commissioning/allocation/coordination step · 3 Existing owner and route can act operationally

Explore the weighting

Weighting for the range

Equal weights: possible range 21 to 24 out of 30. Not a final score.

Possible range if the missing rating is later set from 0 to 3 (incremental affordability). Not a final score, a rank or a confidence interval.

Decision gate

Pending appraisal. Review label: “Pending baseline verification, incremental costing and funding; not a rollout approval”.

  • Scores incomplete.
  • Funding gate not passed (cost unknown or no credible funding).

Eligibility rule: pending appraisal. The working rule (at least 21 of 30 and a meaningful outcome within three years, with evidence, harm, delivery and cost checks) is not yet fully specified in our records, so no option is shown as passing it. A range or a timing rating alone never clears it.

Delivery readiness: Amber

Not yet in place for Green (7 of 7):

  • Scope (population, place and increment) not verified against the delivery baseline.
  • No verified owner with the powers in place.
  • Delivery capacity not verified.
  • Lifetime incremental costs not complete.
  • No credible funding (a committed allocation for the scope).
  • Safeguards not specified.
  • Monitoring lacks a metric, a data source or a baseline.

The funding gap

Funding: not identified. Lifetime costing: Not established.

Still to cost: Verify service gap and current funding; cost adviser time, treatment, referral and follow-up. Measure sustained quits and inequalities, with adverse effects monitored. Proposed owners: public-health commissioners and health providers.

Funding gate: not passed — the cost is not yet rated or no allocation is committed for this scope.

Still unknown

  • Incremental affordability (Co): not yet rated.
  • Scope (who, where and the increment) not yet verified against current delivery.
  • The outcome metric is not yet defined.
  • No data source named for the outcome measure.
  • No baseline for the outcome measure.

Full evidence trail →

Also assessed: 4 candidates kept outside the lists

Kept outside the national lists

Displaced or kept outside by the review; they remain options on their topic pages. Related options are not here: each sits in its outcome above, after the option it builds on where the review names one.

  • Pension money into UK assets

    Delivery risk: AmberProposal needs revision

    Private investment

    Pension money into UK assets

    Owner: Treasury, pension trustees, regulators and investment managers. Cost: Administration, fees, guarantees if any and savers’ risk-adjusted opportunity cost..

    Assessment range and limitations

    Range if completed: 10 to 16 out of 30 (equal weights). Not yet assessed: expected incremental benefit, incremental affordability.

    Topic: Pensions

    Pension allocation needs additionality (gate: Reframe); it remains an option on /growing-the-economy and /pensions. Slot taken by: Childcare places that parents can actually use.

  • Controls on what feeds amplify

    Delivery risk: AmberFurther checks needed

    Platform regulation

    Controls on what feeds amplify

    Owner: Researchers, platforms and regulators; government/Parliament for legal changes. Cost: Platform engineering, independent research, auditing, enforcement and compliance; a cheap pilot is not a costed regulatory system..

    Assessment range and limitations

    Range if completed: 14 to 20 out of 30 (equal weights). Not yet assessed: expected incremental benefit, incremental affordability.

    Topic: Media

    Feed controls remain research and pilot work; the option stays on /media. Slot taken by: Access to effective adult depression treatment.

  • Trust in political money

    Delivery risk: AmberFurther checks needed

    Political finance rules

    Trust in political money

    Owner: Parliament, government and Electoral Commission. Cost: Regulator staffing, IT, compliance, litigation and transition..

    Assessment range and limitations

    Range if completed: 10 to 19 out of 30 (equal weights). Not yet assessed: increment beyond baseline, expected incremental benefit, incremental affordability.

    Topic: Political funding

    Political-money reform belongs in the accountability programme; it stays on /politics/donations. Slot taken by: Targeted access to smoking treatment.

  • A tax on the very top fortunes: three designs

    Delivery risk: RedFurther checks needed

    Tax design

    A tax on the very top fortunes: three designs

    Owner: Treasury, HMRC and Parliament. Cost: Valuation, enforcement, liquidity arrangements, net revenue and behavioural scenarios for each design..

    Assessment range and limitations

    Range if completed: 9 to 18 out of 30 (equal weights). Not yet assessed: increment beyond baseline, expected incremental benefit, incremental affordability.

    Topic: Tax options

    Very-top wealth-tax designs remain fiscal options in the appraisal reserve; they stay on /inequality and /revenue-opportunity. Slot taken by: Close early-language support delivery gaps.

Housing: six priorities for affordability, supply and safe homes

Housing · updated priorities

More homes people can afford, with safer routes into ownership

A typical home in England costs 7.6 times annual pay, more than double 1997.

Build supply, keep rents affordable and widen access to credit responsibly. Each option shows its evidence and what still needs to be assessed.

  1. Turn permissions into completed homes

    Existing assessed action

    Connect sites to infrastructure, secure builders and finance, and measure completed homes rather than permissions.

    Delivery, safeguards and evidence

    Match homes to local need; test infrastructure costs, build-out rates and environmental constraints.

    Track: Net additional homes and time from permission to completion.

    Primary sourceExisting assessment

    Housing issues in the UK SWOT →

    Housing evidence and action
  2. Build more homes at social rents

    Programme delivery priority · additional appraisal needed

    Use the social and affordable homes programme to expand lower-rent supply where need is greatest.

    Delivery, safeguards and evidence

    Report Social Rent separately from Affordable Rent; count sales and demolitions as well as additions. Funding, land and provider capacity constrain delivery.

    Track: Net social-rent stock, rent burdens and access for households in need.

    Primary source

    Housing issues in the UK SWOT →

    Housing evidence and action
  3. Test the new first-time buyer scheme

    Government announcement · details pending

    Your First Home proposes a 20% government equity loan and an expected 2.5% deposit for eligible new-build purchases in England.

    Delivery, safeguards and evidence

    Budget details must settle cost, eligibility and timing. Assess additional homes, price effects, resale terms and taxpayer risk; an equity loan is debt, not a grant.

    The NAO found that the earlier Help to Buy scheme supported ownership and supply, but also helped some who could already buy and exposed buyers and taxpayers to market risk. That is evidence to test the new scheme against, not a forecast of its effects. NAO evaluation.

    Track: Additional first-time buyers and homes, total borrower cost and public exposure.

    Primary source

    Housing issues in the UK SWOT →

    Housing evidence and action
  4. Widen access without weakening affordability checks

    Policy option · not yet appraised

    Assess rent-payment history and sustainable income more effectively so creditworthy applicants can qualify.

    Delivery, safeguards and evidence

    Keep verified affordability, rate-stress checks, responsible-lending rules and system-wide limits on high loan-to-income lending. Test arrears and negative-equity risks. Later-life lending also needs suitable advice, balanced promotions and clear explanations of rolled-up interest and alternatives.

    Track: Access alongside arrears, repossessions, advice complaints and the distribution of high-risk loans.

    Primary sourceFCA: later-life lending safeguards

    Housing issues in the UK SWOT →

    Housing evidence and action
  5. Give families a settled home sooner

    Existing assessed action

    Combine suitable social housing with early tenancy support and homelessness prevention.

    Delivery, safeguards and evidence

    Check suitability, local services and whether buying or leasing homes adds capacity rather than displacing other households.

    Track: Households and children in temporary accommodation; sustained settled tenancies.

    Primary sourceExisting assessment

    Housing issues in the UK SWOT →

    Housing evidence and action
  6. Repair unsafe, damp and inefficient homes

    Delivery priority · additional appraisal needed

    Join maintenance and energy improvements to enforcement of housing and building-safety standards.

    Delivery, safeguards and evidence

    Prioritise serious hazards and remediation; assess costs and avoid repairs budgets being crowded out by new construction.

    Track: Damp, non-decent homes and completion of unsafe-cladding remediation.

    Primary source

    Housing issues in the UK SWOT →

    Housing evidence and action

Reviewed 8 October 2026. The first-time buyer scheme is an announcement, not an open application service. The established national shortlists and their named reviews remain separately identified.

From selection to delivery

A plan needs more than a place on a list.

  1. 01 · Define

    What changes, for whom?

    Name the population, current provision and the additional change. Assign an accountable owner.

  2. 02 · Resource

    Who pays? Who delivers?

    Cost the increment, confirm capacity and identify funding. A programme budget is not an award.

  3. 03 · Test and review

    Did lives actually improve?

    Track outcomes, unintended harms and who gains. Update the plan when the evidence changes.

Delivery readiness today

0 of 35 options rated green

Delivery risk: 9 Red · 26 Amber · none Green

No option yet has verified scope, a verified owner with the powers, verified delivery capacity, complete lifetime costs, credible funding, specified safeguards or monitoring with a metric, source and baseline.

Methodology: the criteria, weightings, ranges, gates and what remains unknown

What this is

Three reviewed lists of ten options (growth and prosperity, wellbeing, equality and opportunity) and a resilience appraisal queue of six. They are an editorial selection from the 6 October 2026 working review, not a ranking, not government policy and not approved spending. The cards shown first in each outcome are examples, not positions. Every assessment is a provisional single-reviewer judgement: an editorial screening framework, not formal GRADE and not a Green Book appraisal or business case. Many options apply to England only; each option states its jurisdiction and what the devolved nations do.

The ten criteria

Each is rated 0 to 3 by the reviewer. A criterion not yet established is shown as “?” and is never counted as 0.

Scale and severity (Sc)
0: No material problem · 1: Limited harm/narrow reach · 2: Serious harm to a defined group or widespread moderate harm · 3: Severe harm across a broad population
Increment beyond baseline (Ad)
0: No increment · 1: Small or poorly supported increment · 2: Specific material change to existing delivery · 3: Substantial clearly distinct increment; not novelty alone
Confidence in the proposed action (Ev)
0: No effect evaluation · 1: Indirect, mixed, modelled or weak causal support · 2: Relevant evaluated evidence with limitations · 3: Consistent strong evidence for the specified intervention/outcome
Expected incremental benefit (Bn)
0: Negligible · 1: Small · 2: Material for the target population · 3: Large for the target population; no multi-domain bonus
Residual harms (Hm)
0: Unacceptable serious harm · 1: Material harm/unresolved mitigation · 2: Manageable harm with specified safeguards · 3: Low assessed residual harm
Incremental affordability (Co)
0: No credible route for a large commitment · 1: Major unfunded commitment · 2: Costed affordable route subject to allocation · 3: Demonstrably small affordable incremental public cost
Delivery capacity (Ca)
0: Unavailable within scope · 1: Binding scarce resource · 2: Stretched but plausibly obtainable · 3: Little scarce capacity required
Distribution (Fa)
0: Strongly regressive · 1: Material disadvantage to vulnerable groups · 2: Mixed or broadly neutral with safeguards · 3: Benefits concentrated on disadvantaged people with assessed burdens
Meaningful first outcome (Ti)
0: Ten years or more · 1: More than three but less than ten years · 2: More than one and up to three years · 3: Within one year
Readiness (Rd)
0: Undefined enabling steps · 1: Legislation/external agreement or major enabling work · 2: Named commissioning/allocation/coordination step · 3: Existing owner and route can act operationally

Four weightings

  • Equal weights: every criterion counts once.
  • Evidence doubled: confidence in the proposed action counts twice.
  • Scale doubled: scale and severity counts twice.
  • Cost ignored: incremental affordability left out.

Each result is normalised to 0–30: 10 × weighted sum ÷ sum of weights.

Completion ranges

While any criterion is unknown, an option shows only the lowest and highest result it could reach if the unknowns were later rated 0 or 3. That is a mathematical bound, not a final score, a rank or a confidence interval. No option is yet complete, so none has a total.

Funding gate

Needs the cost criterion rated and credible funding: a committed allocation for the scope. Ignoring cost in a weighting never removes the gate and never completes a record. Passed by 0 of 35.

Decision gate and eligibility

The gate is pending until the scores are complete, the increment is material (Ad 2 or more) and the funding gate is passed. The working eligibility rule — at least 21 of 30 and a meaningful outcome within three years, with mandatory evidence, harm, delivery and cost checks — is not yet fully specified in our records, so every option shows it as pending appraisal. A completion range or a timing rating is never read as a pass.

Delivery risk

Green needs all seven conditions: verified scope, a verified owner with the powers, verified capacity, complete lifetime costs, credible funding, specified safeguards, and monitoring with a metric, a source and a baseline. Amber: appraisal gaps remain. Red: a material delivery obstacle — not “unimportant”. RAG is separate from eligibility and from list membership.

Display titles and one-line card copy for some options come from the 7 October design; they change no rating. Evidence snapshot: 6 October 2026. Figures and primary sources are checked on each option’s evidence trail.

Evidence behind the headline · SWOT-01

Five constraints keep reappearing

3 of 5 recur in all three of homes, healthcare and growth: workforce and skills; investment; institutional delivery. An editorial synthesis of the domain pages, not a measured national score.

Show the constraints across six domains, two national measures and the full matrix
Five constraints keep reappearing: rows are constraints, columns are domains. Filled: evidence and an option record on that domain page. Hollow: not assessed there.
ConstraintGrowthHousingNHS and careEnergyWorkPublic money
Workforce and skillsIn all threeEvidence and an option record: New infrastructure needs trades and engineers to build and run it.Evidence and an option record: Construction capacity limits how fast permissions become homes.Evidence and an option record: Staff are the binding constraint at most steps of the patient journey.Not assessedEvidence and an option record: 2.74 million people aged 16–64 are out of work through long-term sickness.Not assessed
Power and physical infrastructureEvidence and an option record: Projects wait for grid connections, and industrial power costs more than in peer economies.Not assessedEvidence and an option record: Old buildings and equipment take beds, theatres and scanners out of use.Evidence and an option record: Generation and storage projects queue for connection.Not assessedNot assessed
InvestmentIn all threeEvidence and an option record: Investment was 18.7% of GDP in 2024, against a G7 median of 21.8%.Evidence and an option record: Grant determines how many social and affordable homes start.Evidence and an option record: Surgical hubs and diagnostic centres need capital as well as staff.Evidence and an option record: Insulating the least efficient homes needs up-front money.Not assessedEvidence and an option record: Debt interest (£108.9bn in 2025–26) competes with investment for the same budget.
Institutional deliveryIn all threeEvidence and an option record: Consent for nationally significant infrastructure takes years.Evidence and an option record: Speed and predictability of planning decisions.Evidence and an option record: NHS trusts, councils and care providers must coordinate discharge.Not assessedNot assessedEvidence and an option record: Contract management decides value from public spending; 9 of 12 government pledges lack a dated, costed plan.
Household resilienceNot assessedEvidence and an option record: Renters spend a large share of income on rent.Not assessedEvidence and an option record: Low-income households are most exposed to bill rises.Evidence and an option record: Childcare and transport costs stop some people taking work.Evidence and an option record: Some households miss support they are entitled to.
  • 18.7 % of GDP (UK and G7, 2024)
  • 2.74 million aged 16–64 (UK, Jun–Aug 2026)
Where each shows up, domain by domain, with the option records (SWOT-01)

Rows are shared constraints; columns are priority domains. A filled dot means the domain page holds evidence of this constraint and an option record that addresses it. A blank cell means not assessed here — not that no relationship exists.

Five constraints keep reappearing. Rows are constraints, columns are domains; blank cells were not assessed.
ConstraintGrowthHousingNHS and careEnergyWorkPublic money
Workforce and skillsThe same shortage of trained people limits building, care and new industry, and ill health keeps others out of work.New infrastructure needs trades and engineers to build and run it.Skills for building and running new assets (Growth; moderate evidence)Construction capacity limits how fast permissions become homes.Construction workforce and skills (Housing; limited evidence)Staff are the binding constraint at most steps of the patient journey.Keep and grow the workforce (NHS; moderate evidence)Not assessed2.74 million people aged 16–64 are out of work through long-term sickness.Offer evidence-based employment support alongside healthcare (Jobs & pay; moderate evidence)Not assessed
Power and physical infrastructureGrid connections, buildings and equipment set physical limits that money takes years to lift.Projects wait for grid connections, and industrial power costs more than in peer economies.Grid connections and cheaper industrial power (Growth; not evaluated)Not assessedOld buildings and equipment take beds, theatres and scanners out of use.Invest in buildings, equipment and IT (NHS; moderate evidence)Generation and storage projects queue for connection.Connect projects to the grid faster (Energy; not evaluated)Not assessedNot assessed
InvestmentThe UK invests a smaller share of GDP than its G7 peers. R&D spending is not the gap: it was 2.71% of GDP in 2024.Investment was 18.7% of GDP in 2024, against a G7 median of 21.8%.Turn investment promises into a deliverable pipeline (Growth; moderate evidence)Patient finance for firms that are scaling up (Innovation; limited evidence)Grant determines how many social and affordable homes start.Give families in temporary accommodation a settled home (Housing; moderate evidence)Surgical hubs and diagnostic centres need capital as well as staff.Ring-fenced planned-care and diagnostic capacity (NHS; moderate evidence)Insulating the least efficient homes needs up-front money.Warm homes, inspected before payment (Energy; moderate evidence)Not assessedDebt interest (£108.9bn in 2025–26) competes with investment for the same budget.Raise the growth rate (Public finances; limited evidence)
Institutional deliveryConsent, coordination and commercial capability decide whether funded plans become finished projects.Consent for nationally significant infrastructure takes years.Faster consent for infrastructure and homes (Growth; limited evidence)Speed and predictability of planning decisions.Faster, more predictable planning decisions (Housing; moderate evidence)NHS trusts, councils and care providers must coordinate discharge.Discharge support and social care capacity (NHS; limited evidence)Not assessedNot assessedContract management decides value from public spending; 9 of 12 government pledges lack a dated, costed plan.Build commercial and contract-management capability (Public procurement; moderate evidence)
Household resilienceHouseholds with little slack absorb price, rent and income shocks, which then reach public services.Not assessedRenters spend a large share of income on rent.Support and security for private renters (Housing; limited evidence)Not assessedLow-income households are most exposed to bill rises.Targeted help with bills for low-income households (Energy; limited evidence)Childcare and transport costs stop some people taking work.Practical barriers: childcare and transport (Jobs & pay; not evaluated)Some households miss support they are entitled to.Claim what people are owed (Benefits; limited evidence)

The matrix is an editorial synthesis of the domain pages, not a model: it names a mechanism and links to the evidence, without scoring intensity. Its point is that the same few bottlenecks recur, so options that relieve one domain often depend on another — more operations need staff and discharge capacity; more homes need builders, grid connections and consent.

Source: the option records and evidence on each linked domain page. Editorial synthesis by UK Facts. Matrix SWOT-01.

How this connects

Earlier version (4 October 2026)

Sources and methods (11)

Method notes

  • The national SWOT synthesises the domain plans’ SWOT findings. Every figure it quotes appears in a linked domain finding (checked automatically), and each point states where it applies: UK, Great Britain, England or one nation.
  • Current assessments use ten criteria, each scored from 0 to 3 with a recorded reason. An unknown score stays unknown. Incomplete assessments show the lowest and highest possible completed score, not a final total or rank. The criteria and weights are explained in Sources and method. The earlier nine-criterion High/Medium/Low method belongs only to the historical plan.
  • A priority is one action or up to three sharing a mechanism. Its costs, funding and effects are its actions’ own records, so nothing is copied or counted twice.
  • Reach counts distinct policy areas with a validated, evaluated or modelled benefit held with at least moderate confidence. Plausible links are shown as “to test”; harms are shown and never counted; Hampshire, this page and the policy tools never count.
  • Ranking, sequence and readiness are separate judgements. Dates in the sequence are proposed by UK Facts, not government deadlines. This is an editorial synthesis, not government policy.
  • The five shared constraints (SWOT-01) were chosen because they appear in the evidence and option records of at least three domain pages; a blank matrix cell means not assessed here.