Luke Taylor
MP for Sutton and Cheam · Liberal Democrat · United Kingdom
“I visited Croydon Crown court a few weeks ago with the Bar Council and listened to some of its members. It was clearer than ever that the demands of jury trials are not what is leaving victims waiting years for justice.”
“The Iranian regime is abhorrent. It has oppressed its people for decades, murdering protesters and activists, and it is no friend of ours. Its attacks on civilian shipping risk a global crisis, yet Donald Trump’s escalation and the US’s poorly targeted attacks have put civilians and our friends in the Gulf at huge risk, with the risk of a…”
“May I take this opportunity to congratulate the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who last week took the decision to take her Department and herself off Twitter—or X, or whatever it is called these days?”
“The report finds structural issues within police forces, with fragmented and inconsistent systems that do not make the most of our police talent. If an officer sees cronyism, nepotism and abuse of power around them, they will not have their future career at the top of their mind or trying to break through that system.”
“Q10. On Monday, with colleagues, I wrote to the Health Minister following the news that women’s health and maternity services may be relocated away from St Helier hospital due to building safety concerns.”
“Will the Prime Minister arrange for the Health Secretary to visit St Helier hospital with me to see its condition and hopefully agree to bring forward the build of the new Sutton specialist emergency care hospital—build it today, not in 2034—to ensure safe and modern healthcare and maternity facilities for my constituents?”
The complete record
Every one of 604 lines we hold for Luke Taylor, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 13.
“I visited Croydon Crown court a few weeks ago with the Bar Council and listened to some of its members. It was clearer than ever that the demands of jury trials are not what is leaving victims waiting years for justice. The real question is how we get the most urgent cases listed, prioritised and heard fast to deliver timely justice for our constituents. Will the Minister listen to calls from the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives and the right hon. Member for Makerfield—I do not know what Count Binface thinks about this, but I am pretty sure he will be on the right side of the argument—to instead consider reforms that would make an immediate difference to Crown court backlogs, such as having specialist sexual offences and domestic abuse courts, as the Bar Council has recommended?”
“The Iranian regime is abhorrent. It has oppressed its people for decades, murdering protesters and activists, and it is no friend of ours. Its attacks on civilian shipping risk a global crisis, yet Donald Trump’s escalation and the US’s poorly targeted attacks have put civilians and our friends in the Gulf at huge risk, with the risk of a large-scale regional conflict. Will the Minister assure us that the FCDO keeps plans for the evacuation of British nationals in the region under review, in case they should be required?”
“What steps are the Government and the defending democracy taskforce taking to protect our democracy from foreign influence currently, before the measures in the Representation of the People Bill can be introduced?”
“May I take this opportunity to congratulate the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who last week took the decision to take her Department and herself off Twitter—or X, or whatever it is called these days? We talk about online misinformation and malign foreign influence, so it is worth remembering that Twitter is a platform owned by an individual who is hostile to British values and has openly fomented violence on our streets. At a march last year, he said: “Whether you choose violence or not, violence is coming to you. You either fight back or you die”. Does the Minister have any thoughts on removing her Department, or any further advice for Ministers or Members of this place on whether staying on that platform is in the interests of our democracy?”
“The report finds structural issues within police forces, with fragmented and inconsistent systems that do not make the most of our police talent. If an officer sees cronyism, nepotism and abuse of power around them, they will not have their future career at the top of their mind or trying to break through that system. Given the impending Government reorganisation, how will whichever Home Officer Ministers are in place under the new Prime Minister ensure that the proposed police reorganisation puts strong systems in place, so that there is effective police leadership and development and we break out of the situation that has developed?”
“Will the Prime Minister arrange for the Health Secretary to visit St Helier hospital with me to see its condition and hopefully agree to bring forward the build of the new Sutton specialist emergency care hospital—build it today, not in 2034—to ensure safe and modern healthcare and maternity facilities for my constituents?”
“Q10. On Monday, with colleagues, I wrote to the Health Minister following the news that women’s health and maternity services may be relocated away from St Helier hospital due to building safety concerns. Yesterday we heard Baroness Amos’s review state: “Poorly maintained buildings…affect how safe people feel, how effectively staff can work, and whether care can be delivered in a way that is private, respectful and reliable.”It has been reported today that the Department of Health and Social Care’s capital budget will be cut by more than half a billion pounds over this Parliament to fund the DIP, which puts the new hospital programme timeline in doubt.”
“I was contacted by a constituent who had received one of these letters earlier this week. The offender in question was a vile monster responsible for decades of sexual abuse, and he was sentenced to 30 years for 31 counts of sexual assault, rape and processing indecent images. He has served less than five years. Can the Minister explain how these are not the most heinous crimes, and how an offender like this is still eligible for this scheme? Can he also reassure residents that they will be written to as soon as possible to set their minds at rest, if their abusers are indeed going to be part of this scheme?”
“I was recently contacted by a constituent whose daughter was diagnosed with SMA type 1 at five months old and, in her own words, five months too late. Her child is now two and needs a wheelchair. She cannot sit or stand unaided. She depends on specialist equipment and multiple weekly visits and appointments. That is no way for a toddler to live. Does the hon. Member agree that families like my constituents urgently need the Government to fast-track the roll-out of a testing programme to all children in all areas to ensure the best possible outcomes for children affected by the condition?”
“I have statistics for Worcester Park station, which is also served by South Western Railway, and in the very last period before nationalisation—period 2 for 2025-26—punctuality was 89.3%, which is still not good enough, and cancellations was 1%. In all the periods since then, performance has been worse. Under nationalisation, Worcester Park has seen a worse service in every single period. Does my hon. Friend agree that our residents, particularly those of Worcester Park, do not care if a train turns up wrapped in a Union flag, but about whether that train is on time and not cancelled?”
“That includes going further and faster on the adoption and scaling up of sustainable aviation fuel projects, so that the UK is able to secure supplies of SAF and both ensure the lack of disruption to flights and enable further decarbonisation of aviation. Will the Government commit to formally monitoring hand-backs under the flexibility offered by this legislation in order to ensure that they are the result of genuine fuel shortages, are undertaken in a timely manner and are not being abused? I also echo the concerns of the Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, about the impact on consumers. I will be voting against the draft regulations.”
“In a cost of living crisis, with flight prices already through the roof, customers will be forced to spend more money on replacement flights at the last minute or lose money on hotels or onward travel. It is also the case that 14 days’ notice is too short a period for airports and other users to make effective use of the vacated slots, as airports typically need six weeks’ notice to reallocate slots commercially. This means that we would likely have unused slots, which reduces income to airports and reduces investment in passenger and freight infrastructure. Slot alleviation on its own cannot be considered the solution to fuel resilience issues; other action is needed. The Government must outline what other steps they will take to ensure the continued, resilient supply and availability of jet fuel in the UK.”
“The Liberal Democrats recognise that flexibility during this tumultuous period is important; as we have seen, events can move very quickly in the middle east. We want to protect the long-term financial sustainability of the airline sector. We do not want airlines using slots for empty or near-empty ghost flights, where demand is insufficient, in order to maintain the historical rights to slots, but these changes would result in flight cancellations with little notice, with huge disruption to consumers. The proposal to allow hand-backs with as little as 14 days’ notice is contrary to the stated aim of preventing disruptive late cancellations, and it is unnecessary given that JNUS can be used at this late stage if a genuine fuel shortage occurs.”
“They argued that the existing justified non-utilisation of slots provisions are sufficient to enable cancellations where operational constraints, including fuel shortages, arise. For instance, JNUS has already come into effect, providing slot alleviation to operators because of airport and airspace closures from the disruption in the middle east. It is worth noting that, given that there is no fuel shortage now and none is expected according to Government data and airline bosses, this approach risks appearing to be unjustified, disproportionate and not entirely required, given that the measures in place are already helping with those issues. There is a risk that, instead of ensuring reliable services as stated, it could undermine consumer confidence and growth and investment opportunities.”
“I think it is helpful to look at the consultation responses from airlines and airports when changes were announced. Only two out of 38 airlines opposed the changes, whereas airports were unanimously opposed to the measures. Airlines argued that, without a hand-back mechanism, they would not be able to adjust their schedules early enough to provide passengers with meaningful notice, even where known risks to operations existed. Airlines also considered the 10% limit on hand-backs too low and pushed to increase that to 20%-plus; generally speaking, we support the restriction to 10%, to reduce the potential impact on consumers. Airport respondents opposed the proposal; they were not against alleviation in principle but against the hand-back mechanism specifically.”
“There is an interesting dynamic between the impact of a fuel crisis, which is likely to have quite a short lead time, and these regulations, which give almost a six-month warning. Does the Minister recognise the need for oversight of how the rules are used to ensure that this happens in response to a fuel crisis and not for business reasons, or to expand the flexibility given by the existing JNUS rules?”
“When the petition was launched in February, there was hope that it would not be necessary—that the Lords would complete their scrutiny of the Bill and a stronger, improved Bill would come back for debate in the Commons. Unfortunately, that was not to be. As the Government’s response to the petition on 26 February made clear, the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 established the primacy of the House of Commons as a cornerstone of democratic process.”
“It is entirely possible to support the need for a reviewing upper Chamber while believing that, if there is significant popular will in favour of a piece of legislation, and valid evidence in favour of its implementation, the Commons’ view that a Bill should at least be considered should ultimately prevail. Unfortunately, we are here because that principle has not been applied to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. Let us quickly remember the Bill was given its Second Reading by 330 votes to 275. It was given its Third Reading by 314 votes to 291. As we have heard, in May 2025, after being told about the specific eligibility criteria and key provisions of the Bill that had passed its Third Reading, 73% of the public backed it. Even its opponents must accept that the Bill was supported by MPs and the public.”
“It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for introducing the debate so capably, as well as the petitioners, who are the reason we are having this debate. The petition is incredibly simple. It asks to apply the very basic principle that when Bills are supported by MPs and the public, they have time to complete all their parliamentary stages. We have heard a couple of extraordinary arguments against that in this debate—that is a surprise. I no longer have to read, “We won’t hear a credible argument against that principle”, although I think that is still true.”
“We must take every opportunity to ensure that this is not allowed to go unchecked, that the lessons do not go unlearned and, most crucially, that the alleviation of suffering offered by the Bill is not lost for another generation.”
“As with so many other private Members’ Bills in our long and proud history, the human story that hides behind the constitutional fray that we have been arguing about can get lost. Once it reaches the statute book, the net gain and the quality of life of those that it affects shine through. It was the same for the right to an abortion, and for someone’s rights to love and marry who they love. Now, it is the right to the most fundamental exercise of individual will and liberty imaginable. This debate is about hope, choice and taking control of the end of life. That hope and choice has been taken away by a tiny number of unelected legislators who have wilfully tested the good chap theory to destruction.”
“We have heard Rod Liddle, who was opposed to the Bill, say that his “side won by cheating”, and that opponents of the Bill had used “the machinery of government, rather than honest debate, to get it booted out”. Lord Moylan, who tabled 46 amendments, openly posted on Twitter that, “Peers are justified in blocking assisted dying bill”. He also shared an editorial from The Times saying that, “Peers who want to continue blocking this bill and prevent it from ever becoming law are justified in doing so.” Clearly, that is a reference to the use of amendments and speeches to block the Bill. Thus far, I have focused on the process, but it is important to mention the real human costs of those who are faced with one of the most heartbreaking decisions possible at their most vulnerable time.”
“Lord Sandhurst tabled 68 amendments, Lord Goodman of Wycombe 59 and Lord Moylan 46, including amendment 236, which would have forbidden the patient’s co-ordinating doctor from ever being employed in any way by the NHS at the same time that the process was being followed. None of those amendments was about making the Bill better, improving safeguards or refining the Bill. They were meant entirely to frustrate the will of MPs and the will of the public. In the same way that Boris Johnson obliterated the good chaps theory in the Commons, those seven Members of the House of Lords have been most directly responsible for finally obliterating the good chaps theory in the Lords. As we have heard, constitutional expert Mark D’arcy said that the process was clearly a “filibuster”.”
“Seven of the most vocal opponents put forward nearly 700 amendments between them. It is worth looking at a couple of those who are most responsible for blocking the Bill. Baroness Finlay of Llandaff tabled 169 amendments and Baroness Grey-Thompson tabled 131, including amendment 458, which proposed, as we have heard, that every applicant, including men, people over 75 and those who are infertile, must supply a negative pregnancy test. Lord Carlile of Berriew tabled 72 amendments, as did Baroness Coffey, whose amendment 15 sought to exclude anyone who had left the UK in the previous 12 months, which would have meant anyone who had been on holiday or received a terminally ill prognosis of six months while abroad.”
“We could have considered it, but we never got the chance because it was filibustered—it was spoken out. As with so much of our unwritten constitution, that principle’s ability to prevail, including for private Members’ Bills that enjoy significant support, relies on the good chaps and chapesses theory of government. Peter Hennessy described that theory as an unwarranted faith that “those who rise to high office will be ‘good chaps’” and chapesses who know “the unwritten rules” and want to “adhere to them, even if doing so might frustrate the attainment of their policy objectives”. When we examine the amendments and speeches in the Lords, it is clear that, in this instance, that theory has spectacularly failed. When the Bill fell, 1,280 amendments had been tabled.”
“We Liberal Democrats support this legislation. The regulations do not change existing policy but provide an updated legal framework for the regulation of animal use in scientific procedures. However, clearer animal welfare standards must be accompanied by stronger action from the Government. We should be working to minimise the use of animals in scientific experimentation, end animal testing in the cosmetics industry, and properly fund the development of humane alternatives. If the Government want Britain to be a world leader in animal welfare, they must go further and bring forward a comprehensive animal health and welfare Bill worthy of that goal.”
“Does the Leader of the House agree that this scandal will be the defining legacy of the Starmer premiership, and that it shows clearly how the change and service agenda promised after the scandal and sleaze of the last Tory Government were as much empty words as the suggestion that proper process was followed in Mandelson’s appointment?”
“I rise only to pass on the frustrations from the Liberal Democrat Benches and from my residents that the important legislation planned for Wednesday will now be delayed, and that the incredibly important improvements to rail services that our residents are calling out for will be further delayed. Parkinson’s law suggests that work expands to fill the space available for its completion. May I suggest Mandelson’s law—that, when he is appointed to a Government, his scandals will expand to fill the time available for their discussion?”
“Finally, can the Minister confirm that the Government will review all links and contracts between Palantir and the Government, the NHS and the police, following the revelations around Mandelson, Global Counsel and Palantir?”
“The documents show that in July 2025, Peter Mandelson contacted No. 10 to suggest that the Prime Minister should make time to meet Peter Thiel while he was in London. Peter Mandelson described Mr Thiel as a “celebrated techie”, and this followed the meeting in February 2025 with Palantir in Washington. First, can the Minister confirm whether that meeting with the Prime Minister happened? Secondly, is it the view of the Government, as expressed—unchallenged—by their former ambassador to the US, that a man who described Nazi Carl Schmitt as a major influence on his thinking, and who also said that freedom and democracy are incompatible, is indeed just a “celebrated techie”?”
“T4. I have heard from victims of domestic abuse and stalking about the harrowing journey they face in rebuilding their lives. For many, the one thing that gives them comfort is the knowledge that their abuser cannot reach them from behind bars, but Government changes to category D prisons can now allow these offenders to be moved to open conditions much earlier than before, despite their crimes being exempt from standard determinate sentence 40—SDS 40—because of their recognised higher risk. Will the Minister meet me to discuss excluding domestic abusers and stalkers from early transfer to open prisons, so that the victims’ peace of mind can be retained?”
“I present a petition of residents of the constituency of Sutton and Cheam. The petition states: The petition of residents of the constituency of Sutton and Cheam, Declares that an assisted dying law should be enacted without further delay, following the House of Commons voting in favour of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill in June 2025; and further declares that there is overwhelming public support for law change. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take such actions as are within its power to facilitate the progress of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. And the petitioners remain, etc. [P003187]”
“On 12 September, it was revealed in The Independent that Mandelson did not pass vetting by MI6, and therefore by UKSV. On 16 September, in this Chamber, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) made the same claim in the presence of the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). On hearing that information, did the Minister or the Prime Minister feel the need to ask whether that specific claim was true? The response given was that DV clearance was “granted by the FCDO”. As a KC, how did the Prime Minister not see the clear difference between the question that was asked, and the answer that was given? Does he agree that, in his own words, his explanation “beggars belief”?”
“I join the Minister in condemning the attacks in Finchley, Hendon and Harrow. There have been four attacks on Jewish sites in London in a week. It is heartbreaking that the Jewish community once again faces horrific antisemitic abuse, just under a month after the events at the Hatzola ambulance station. Tragically for our Jewish friends and neighbours, these attacks are no longer a surprise. Hate crime in London is rising, and it demands a response. The Metropolitan police must be given the resources that they need to monitor vulnerable neighbourhoods and protect communities. I welcome the measures that the Minister outlined in his statement, but what assurance can he give Londoners that police officer numbers will be increased—and will not continue to decrease—so that we can stamp out hate crime in our capital?”
“At the very least, they should tell my constituents who have written to me on this topic whether their concerns, which have been raised in this debate, are falling on deaf ears.”
“First, are the Government investigating ongoing reports of unethical lobbying efforts within the NHS and shady public relations by Palantir? For instance, we have seen allegations that the joint chair of north-west London’s four major hospital trusts was privately urging colleagues to add more patient data to the platform at the same time as advising Palantir through Global Counsel. Secondly, have the Government taken any steps to make sure that the security and integrity of NHS data systems are iron-clad in the event of any rogue actions not just by Palantir, but by any third-party contractor? At that point, simple litigation for breach of contract would be moot; the damage will have been done. The Government should not need to do this—they should just wind down the contract.”
“He once told the Oxford student union that our love for the NHS is a form of Stockholm syndrome. Palantir and Peter Thiel must have their hands ripped off of our NHS before it is too late. We cannot stand idly by and let the NHS be rescued from years of Conservative neglect just to have critical functions and funding handed to a far-right US tech billionaire. The interweaving of Palantir’s opaque software with the framework of the NHS would make us dangerously dependent on and vulnerable to the whims of his strange organisation. This Labour Government have had two years to signal their intention to end their partnership with Palantir, but they have failed to do so. I have some questions for the Minister.”
“It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. A nation, like a person, is judged by the company it keeps, and in this case, the companies to which it keeps handing taxpayers’ money. I tend to count my worth by the list of my enemies, and if I make one of Palantir today, I can count it as a good day’s work. To be clear, the Government’s engagement with Palantir is shameful. Peter Thiel, the founder of Palantir, is a dangerous extremist who has called the Nazi Carl Schmitt a major influence on his thinking. He has allowed Palantir to provide sensitive data to Donald Trump’s far-right thugs in ICE to add power to their cruel elbow as they come crashing down on communities. Peter Thiel hates our values and hates the very principle of our NHS.”
“Will she consider our requests for support to establish agreed clinical definitions for the different types of UTIs so that we can inform long-overdue updates to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines and finally end the scandal of sufferers being ignored and gaslit by medical professionals, which has happened for far too long?”
“On behalf of the newly established APPG on urinary tract infections, which I am proud to co-chair alongside the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement and this strategy. The APPG welcomes the acknowledgement that women’s health has been neglected for far too long, and we cautiously welcome the commitments to redesign urogynaecology pathways and fund a specialist centre in each region. On behalf of the many women and, heartbreakingly, children who suffer from chronic urinary tract infections, can the Minister confirm whether those commitments cover the treatment of acute, recurrent and chronic UTIs?”
“We know that knife crime is not just a policing issue; it is a public health crisis. If we are serious about tackling it as the epidemic that it is, we must treat it as one, and bring together every person who sees the warning signs: teachers, GPs, youth workers, social workers, sports coaches—trusted adults who know when something is going wrong—and, tragically, as we have read in the conclusions of the Southport inquiry report, parents too. Right now, all those groups are isolated and do not talk to each other. We need to break down the silo walls and build real partnerships across civil society. Until the Government recognise that and invest in a public health approach, our progress will be blunted.”
“Secondly, will the Minister confirm whether the 13,000 new police officers in the neighbourhood teams that the Government claim to be deploying are actually a new resource, or is this an accounting trick, whereby existing officers are redeployed? The Minister may not want to talk about numbers, but they are particularly important in London; the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley has said that it is increasingly difficult to keep Londoners safe with a shrinking force, and estimates suggests that there are 2,503 fewer police officers in London today than there were in May 2024. I am happy to be corrected on that number. Finally, will the Minister explain why the Government continue to skirt around the edges of a meaningful public health approach, without adopting one outright?”
“The Liberal Democrats welcome the publication of the strategy, and I am particularly glad to note the involvement of the Ben Kinsella Trust in formulating it. The trust does remarkable work with young students and teachers to make sure that we take a holistic approach to knife crime, which is badly needed. That is particularly true of its chief executive officer, Patrick Green, who I had the pleasure of meeting at Finsbury library last year. We Liberal Democrats have said time and again that we need a smarter approach to knife crime, not just to save lives but to improve them. Will the Minister commit to securing long-term funding for the measures outlined in the strategy? Without that guarantee, the strategy will be little more than warm words.”
“Will the Minister explain what the Government will do now to get more, not fewer, police officers on London’s streets to stop horrific incidents like this ever happening again?”
“That means recognising that we have an antisemitism problem in this country and that, crucially, we must take action to tackle the root causes of it. Will the Minister set out what steps will be taken under the recently unveiled cohesion strategy to bring an end to the scourge that is antisemitism in this country? Will the Minister finally listen to our calls to reverse the cuts to Metropolitan police officer numbers? Since May 2024, it is estimated that 2,508 officers have been lost, while the Met commissioner has warned of the increasing difficulty of keeping Londoners safe with a shrinking force. Visible policing plays a key role in deterring and investigating this kind of crime, and it reassures communities, such as our Jewish community, because no one should live in fear as a result of their religion.”
“I, like so many Londoners, woke up this morning to the news of this cowardly attack. I felt that horrible pit of disgust in my stomach, and a deep concern for my Jewish friends and neighbours. I want to express my heartfelt sympathies to Jews across London and the country, and to affirm that hate like this will never be normalised. It is the opposite of everything our city stands for. We welcome the Government’s commitment to replace the ambulances quickly, but will the Minister set out what immediate safety measures are being put in place for local residents and key Jewish sites across the country? I reiterate that our efforts in this place must be focused not just on responding after the fact, but on making meaningful interventions beforehand to stop distressing crimes like this happening in the first place.”
“In 1884, parts of London would receive up to seven deliveries per day. By 1879, that had increased to 12 daily deliveries—can Members imagine? Today, in some parts of Sutton and Cheam or Worcester Park, we are lucky to see one delivery a week. That is 150 years of progress.”
“The Minister has only to look across the Atlantic for recent experience of the undermining of faith in the electoral system when there is a lack of confidence that ballots will arrive on time and be counted. What assessment has been made of the impact of delays on local elections? What plans do the Government have to require Royal Mail to remove the shackles on local delivery offices to help them to clear rounds at this critical time? Will the Minister give a read-out of what firm actions and conclusions were agreed in his meeting with Ofcom last Wednesday, after his statement in the Chamber last week?”
“Royal Mail may be a private company, but it delivers a public service, which is supposed to be overseen by Ofcom. A private company failing to deliver the public services it is mandated to do and getting away with it because of rubbish regulators—that covers at least 50% of the speeches delivered in this Chamber. It feels so familiar to me, having done it over and over. The Government are further eroding the confidence of our public by not showing improvements in any of these services. Let me conclude with some questions for the Minister. Local elections are approaching in May, and the Government know that many people rely on postal votes to express their democratic right.”
“Last Wednesday I sent out a batch of first-class letters from my constituency. In the letter I asked people to tell me when their delivery turned up and how long it had taken. The results: out of 23 replies so far, only 15 arrived the next working day, five took two days, and three took three days or more to arrive, with the latest arriving this morning. Yes, that is a small sample size—my credentials as an engineer will not let me fail to mention that—but Royal Mail’s target to have 93% of first-class mail arrive the next day was failed catastrophically, with my experiment placing its success rate closer to 65%. When someone pays for first class, they are not making a complicated request: next-day delivery—that is the promise.”