Stability is something many instinctively expect the state to provide. Yet, in truth, it is often when the state knows when to step back, rather than intervene, that stability is best preserved.

A government that overreaches, interferes excessively or constantly rewrites the rules of people’s lives tends to generate uncertainty, not calm.

That distinction matters because recent years have felt anything but settled. A global pandemic, war in Europe and the spiralling cost of an ever-expanding welfare state have combined to unsettle households and businesses alike.

Added to this is growing international instability, which has very real consequences for our economy, security and energy supplies at home. It is therefore entirely understandable that people want a calm, credible government.

At the weekend, the prime minister acknowledged that “people are frustrated about the pace of change” before setting out what appears to be a new tone for his premiership, with much resting on what Labour hopes to deliver in 2026. “This year, Britain will turn a corner,” Sir Keir Starmer declared.

For a prime minister and government in whom many people, myself included, have little confidence to run the country effectively, such words will only matter if they are matched by meaningful action.

From my conversations with residents and businesses across Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere, Liphook and our villages, it is clear that confidence will not return unless Labour is prepared to rethink several of the policies it has already brought forward, particularly those that were never included in its manifesto.

Yet just days after Sir Keir’s remarks, there is little evidence of any real change in approach. Despite criticising others for relying on slogans rather than “real action”, he now promises that “your community will see more funding, restoring local pride”.

In reality, the new Pride in Place scheme delivers no funding for communities in Waverley or East Hampshire, as well as many other areas. This follows the abolition of Levelling Up and comes alongside proposals that risk cutting funding to councils in Surrey and Hampshire. These decisions could shift costs onto local residents while resources are redirected elsewhere.

So, only days into the year, a familiar gap is already emerging between what the Government says and what it does. That is disappointing, though not surprising.

Looking ahead, my priority as your MP is to provide consistency and clarity locally, even when national politics feels unsettled. That means listening carefully, being honest about what I can and cannot change, and standing up for our community’s interests in Parliament.

This includes pressing for regeneration and investment, opposing digital IDs, demanding value for money from our now nationalised railway, supporting rural communities, improving local education and advocating for individuals who need support.

I want people to feel confident about where they live and reassured that they are represented by someone who will work steadily and seriously on their behalf. My focus remains on practical outcomes, limited and sensible government, and genuine stability rather than grand promises that fail to deliver.