Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Razgovory]

So what is the mood in the UK right now? Is the North one incident away from going up in flames?

As far as I can tell, the Right is obsessed with an incident that didn't happen.

[Josquius]

So what is the mood in the UK right now? Is the North one incident away from going up in flames?

No?
There's been some small attempts to stir shit but they're barely news worthy. Much smaller scale than the protests after the riots last year.

I would say there's a general feeling of depression. We thought Labour would sort stuff out but... That hasn't happened. And for sure some rising support for the fascists as what people think is the only alternative out of that.... But given they've won local elections and are on the rise peacefully there's no little special for violence from their supporters let alone the Fringe.

I think most people aren't paying much attention to them at all in local government. Key to how they got in really. But for sure some worrying nonsense from them-pledge to stick to tried and tested technology for power generation.... Which means blocking solar and wind projects and encouraging fracking. Divs.

[Sheilbh]

In a world that is good sure that should be fine.
But in 2025 Britain with the far right on the march.... It pays to have a healthy suspicion of any criticisms that asylum hotels are bad (which yeah, they clearly are). The far right very commonly hide their shit behind reasonable takes.

You can't let worrying about what your opponents are going to say drive your agenda. And I think just not dealing with an issue would make it worse. If asylum hotels are bad - and they are - then do the sorts of policies you need to clear the backlog and shut them down. Don't get into a defensive crouch either denying it's an issue or refusing to engage because Farage talks about them - that's letting a party with 4 MPs have far too much power by negative polarisation.

And to be clear asylum hotels are a policy failure. They're there because of a record backlog of asylum claims waiting to be heard and a shortage of accommodation. People don't like Serco block booking a hotel and filling it up with random men. And purely on the cost the asylum hotel bill is over £4 billion a year (or context - it's about the same as the disability benefits cut that cause so much trouble for Reeves). We did not have them until covid when the asylum system collapsed. And while other countries in Europe have similar issues no-one else uses hotels as a solution and I just think that framing is toxic - in Germany, for example, they often use out of town barracks.

The boats are an outcome of the border working.

I don't quite get that.

Also, incidentally on Blair and the direction of travel on the ECHR - we now have two Blair era, former Labour Home Secretaries suggesting that either we need to leave the ECHR, suspend it or change, via parliament, how the courts are interpreting it.

Though 2008 being so forgotten across the board.... Worrying.
I do wonder how it'd look if you could pick two.

The correct answer is 1969 and Jim Callaghan defeating In Place of Strife and Barbara Castle

It is difficult on that list because cause-effect isn't all that straightforward but 2008 is absolutely essential. Britain's business model ended and we've never recovered it (although I actually think for the UK it's really 2005 when it all starts).

Separately I thought this was interesting on Reform sort of from a technical perspective - and this is big part of the answer of why Farage is leading the agenda so much at this moment. Because he's there:

The Farage season: with its rivals away, Reform basks in summer headlines
Jessica Elgot
Deputy political editor

Government silence and a light news agenda has created the conditions for a seemingly well-funded Farage barrage
Thu 28 Aug 2025 09.00 BST

Nigel Farage is far less bothered than many politicians about taking his own trips abroad while parliament is sitting. Refreshed and relaxed, he can then spend the summer recess in Westminster, dominating the scene while his opponents are on their sunloungers and the news agenda is light.

The Reform UK leader has been at the helm of five press conferences, one every week of recess, and has just managed two more in the final week. Most of them have been on Mondays, with announcements on migration and crime trailed into the weekend papers and his live appearances on news channels sometimes lasting longer than an hour.

Those Monday conferences have prompted debates and backlash which run for days. Each week there has been a raft of defections, from a police and crime commissioner, former MPs and on Wednesday Reform UK's first MSP. He has featured on at least 22 front pages.

Farage speaks off-script, dismissing the questions he cannot answer, but taking dozens. Unlike a government press conference, he luxuriates in the time he has available, with long rambling answers which contain a multitude of half-truths and pet theories that could be turned into news stories.

And – some would say even commendably – he takes questions from every journalist present, even magazine writers and podcasters who have sometimes seemed caught off guard by having their name called by Farage from the podium when they had attended primarily to record the atmosphere.

Each event has led to a string of news stories, from demands for the release of details of criminal suspects' ethnicity and migration status to the proliferation of flags. And then there was his final major intervention of recess: an extensive plan for mass deportations.

At that launch, he took dozens of questions again, brushing aside any scrutiny on detail. It might be a sad indictment of our politics, but tripping up on practicalities does not yet seem to be the way he might eventually come a cropper. Farage can be brazen where another politician would simply look shifty.

There is also an unspoken element to these staged events and press conferences which is impressing the Westminster pack: just how much money the party clearly has to be spending on all these summer stunts. A far cry from early chaotic press conferences in hired rooms, where Lee Anderson positioned himself directly behind a billowing flag, giving the impression of a headless speaker.

Now in Millbank Tower, the weekly press conference room glistens with professional kit. The launch of the deportation plan involved the bussing of journalists to an Oxfordshire airport, with towering screens and a mock departure board for deportation flights.

Gawain Towler, Farage's former director of communications, said the Reform leader's strategy over the summer had been to position himself as a prime minister-in-waiting. "He needs to be able to see the whole battlefield and not get bogged down in a single skirmish," he said. "What we are seeing is Farage growing up, quickly."

And what of the government? There has been a far from coherent agenda, no press conferences from cabinet ministers or any major policy developments, though there were plans announced for reforms of asylum appeals and on the operational status of the agreement with the French to return some of the arrivals from small boats.

A smattering of press releases on planning and environmental changes have not troubled many newspaper front pages. Starmer's single opportunity to steal back the spotlight came yet again on the international stage, as he joined European leaders in Washington as support for Ukraine's President Zelenskyy.

Faced with the Farage barrage, there is a wall of silence. No cabinet minister is taking the role of attack dog. Starmer took this approach in the election campaign when it came to the Tory offensive: that he should never be pulled on to his opponent's territory. Those close to the prime minister expect him eventually to respond but on his own terms, using the language of Labour values, when parliament returns.

But as Reform UK's poll lead holds firm and immigration begins to outpace even the economy and health as the top concern of voters, No 10 might come to regret that it allowed Farage the space to make the summer entirely his own.

A few thoughts on this.

First is that it is just quite smart. I've always thought that being leader of the opposition is the most tough job in politics because it's such a struggle to get attention - if you're in government you can do something to change the news agenda (someone should inform Starmer of this fact). While leader of the opposition have far fewer tools to get attention. I'm slightly surprised no-one has previously thought of doing loads of announcements during summer recess (and otherwise the timing is standard: trail over the weekend over what you plan to announce, announce on Monday and then get a week of earned coverage). I am struck again by the government's passivity though - this is the second summer in a row where they just kind of disappear. I'd add this used to be Blair's strategy too, he would always have a full recess of activity and announcements.

I think the "sad indictment of our politics" point on lack of policies slightly misses the point here. I think this is a case of being able to see the flaws of someone you oppose more easily than your own side. Kemi Badenoch's regular attack line is that Farage has no real policies. The problem is Badenoch has spent the last year saying she won't make any policy commitments because it's too early...so she doesn't really have any either. Could anyone convincingly describe the government's policy agenda? I see Starmer's reorganising Number 10 for the third time in just over a year and signalling a turn left...so that's clear as mud.

I think this goes for a lot of the normal attack lines on Farage - I think for many voters they look at Badenoch and Starmer (but also Corbyn, Truss, May, Johnson, Sunak) and don't really see the difference in kind. I also think that the pearl-clutching attacks also don't work. When Farage made this announcement the Guardian's initial headline and the Lib Dem line was around how it'd be in breach of ECHR which just seems a bit weird when Farage's commitment was to pull out of it. The other was about the language used. I don't think we can tone place our way to beating Reform (and I think both of those lines in the Guardian would possibly even increase Reform support) -the key is actually making the argument for what you want.

But I'm really struck by the production values point - look forward to the funding report from the Electoral Commission for this financial year. But it is striking. In part it is more expensive but also in some ways it just seems to be trying new things. So they have a prop to pose in front, like this:


But also the backdrop and staging of the press conferences just look more media friendly for generating images or film. I'd add to this the point in the article Tamas posted about Reform livestreaming their own press conferences - with hosts and commentary. They've also appointed a daytime TV doctor as party Chair and announced that Jeremy Vine (for Americans - a bit like our Jerry Springer - but more judgemental) as the "host" of their conference (conferences don't normally have "hosts"). It's interesting - and I think clever.

In a weird way on technique/style - I can't help but think of the reforms Peter Mandelson made to Labour's PR operation in the 80s and then New Labour (with lots of lessons from Clinton) when everything became a bit more stage managed, slick, designed with TV evening news in mind, with ministers trained to take a line. That is still the dominant style. I can't help but think that what Reform are doing (and perhaps Corbyn and Sultana) maybe next in terms of style (and Labour, Tories etc need to catch up). I also can't help but think of the old left-wing alter-globalisation chant "we are the media" and Reform are doing it.

I mentioned in the other thread that I think fandoms are a really important way to understanding the world right now - and I've read sports journalists say they think it is only a matter of time before football clubs turn off all access for the media. That one of the big clubs will basically only do official club content plus fan generated content and the best the media will be able to do is report what they see. I can't help but wonder if we're heading in the same direction with politics too: party social media account, YouTube, streamers, influencers etc. There's a whole infrastructure that many people - at least the most enthusiastic - never need to go anywhere else.

[HVC]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DN5Y--vEWTu

[Josquius]

You can't let worrying about what your opponents are going to say drive your agenda. And I think just not dealing with an issue would make it worse. If asylum hotels are bad - and they are - then do the sorts of policies you need to clear the backlog and shut them down. Don't get into a defensive crouch either denying it's an issue or refusing to engage because Farage talks about them - that's letting a party with 4 MPs have far too much power by negative polarisation.

Eh?
We weren't talking about Labour policy. We were talking about the protests.
Are they organic local protests?
Could be. Though always pays to keep an eye out for far right agitators. They're keen to build this stuff.

On Labour policy, I don't know how you understand that I think Labour shouldn't deal with it. They clearly should. But they shouldn't just accept the fascist framing of it. They should prioritise completely different things- cutting off the flow through international collaboration and better internal controls on work rather than punishing refugees to try and disuade them.

And to be clear asylum hotels are a policy failure. They're there because of a record backlog of asylum claims waiting to be heard and a shortage of accommodation. People don't like Serco block booking a hotel and filling it up with random men. And purely on the cost the asylum hotel bill is over £4 billion a year (or context - it's about the same as the disability benefits cut that cause so much trouble for Reeves). We did not have them until covid when the asylum system collapsed. And while other countries in Europe have similar issues no-one else uses hotels as a solution and I just think that framing is toxic - in Germany, for example, they often use out of town barracks.

Yes.
But do you hear about much of this?
No. Its all here's a bunch of rapists being imported for a free stay as long as they like in a luxury 4 star hotel.
More should be pointing out it is a failure on the fact-based line that it is a result of a far right agitation and then policy failure.
Labour is really failing on this with just accepting Farage's framing. And if you do that then nothing will be good enough except the full nuclear throw them all in the sea option.

I don't quite get that.

It logically is.
As you say yourself the refugee flow was on the channel tunnel until security was tightened and then they shifted onto lorries and then when that was tightened they went around the borders instead.
Factor in that flying into UK to claim asylum is incredibly difficult for most and our borders are actually incredibly strong. Needlessly so potentially.
Nowhere, even North Korea (though they're certainly tightening things up), can completely control its borders. As an island not far from Europe its going to be incredibly hard to stop any boats landing.
The key doesn't lie in border control, it lies in stopping criminal gangs and then drastically cutting back the black economy in the UK.

Separately I thought this was interesting on Reform sort of from a technical perspective - and this is big part of the answer of why Farage is leading the agenda so much at this moment. Because he's there:


A few thoughts on this.

First is that it is just quite smart. I've always thought that being leader of the opposition is the most tough job in politics because it's such a struggle to get attention - if you're in government you can do something to change the news agenda (someone should inform Starmer of this fact). While leader of the opposition have far fewer tools to get attention. I'm slightly surprised no-one has previously thought of doing loads of announcements during summer recess (and otherwise the timing is standard: trail over the weekend over what you plan to announce, announce on Monday and then get a week of earned coverage). I am struck again by the government's passivity though - this is the second summer in a row where they just kind of disappear. I'd add this used to be Blair's strategy too, he would always have a full recess of activity and announcements.

I think the "sad indictment of our politics" point on lack of policies slightly misses the point here. I think this is a case of being able to see the flaws of someone you oppose more easily than your own side. Kemi Badenoch's regular attack line is that Farage has no real policies. The problem is Badenoch has spent the last year saying she won't make any policy commitments because it's too early...so she doesn't really have any either. Could anyone convincingly describe the government's policy agenda? I see Starmer's reorganising Number 10 for the third time in just over a year and signalling a turn left...so that's clear as mud.

I think this goes for a lot of the normal attack lines on Farage - I think for many voters they look at Badenoch and Starmer (but also Corbyn, Truss, May, Johnson, Sunak) and don't really see the difference in kind. I also think that the pearl-clutching attacks also don't work. When Farage made this announcement the Guardian's initial headline and the Lib Dem line was around how it'd be in breach of ECHR which just seems a bit weird when Farage's commitment was to pull out of it. The other was about the language used. I don't think we can tone place our way to beating Reform (and I think both of those lines in the Guardian would possibly even increase Reform support) -the key is actually making the argument for what you want.

But I'm really struck by the production values point - look forward to the funding report from the Electoral Commission for this financial year. But it is striking. In part it is more expensive but also in some ways it just seems to be trying new things. So they have a prop to pose in front, like this:


But also the backdrop and staging of the press conferences just look more media friendly for generating images or film. I'd add to this the point in the article Tamas posted about Reform livestreaming their own press conferences - with hosts and commentary. They've also appointed a daytime TV doctor as party Chair and announced that Jeremy Vine (for Americans - a bit like our Jerry Springer - but more judgemental) as the "host" of their conference (conferences don't normally have "hosts"). It's interesting - and I think clever.

In a weird way on technique/style - I can't help but think of the reforms Peter Mandelson made to Labour's PR operation in the 80s and then New Labour (with lots of lessons from Clinton) when everything became a bit more stage managed, slick, designed with TV evening news in mind, with ministers trained to take a line. That is still the dominant style. I can't help but think that what Reform are doing (and perhaps Corbyn and Sultana) maybe next in terms of style (and Labour, Tories etc need to catch up). I also can't help but think of the old left-wing alter-globalisation chant "we are the media" and Reform are doing it.

I'm all over with this.
Its definitely true that Farage is "cheating". Running around during summer whilst everyone is away. Really seems to me its a problem in the British system where so much runs on tradition and the way things have always been that when we get an establishment anti-establishment figure like Farage he will just exploit the gaping loopholes.
Others either need to recognise gentlemanly behaviour is dead and start doing this too, or actively codify the rules to say political activity in August is forbidden (with the world having moved on quite a bit most likely the former).

I think there's a bit of a problem though in giving the impression of speaking off the cough, not watching your words, etc... is a lot easier if you're especially trying to position yourself as a cunt, and offending people is by design.
To take Corbyn as the closest parallel on the other side, he does have to be a lot more careful in what he says as he is trying to position himself as a nice guy- hence when he  condones terrorists or Putin, or 7 out of 10s the EU, it has huge consequences.

Its fundamentally far more easier to destroy than to create. When you're positioning yourself as on the outside and wanting to destroy things then it's a lot easier than having to argue actual productive alternative policies- always an issue for the opposition as if they're too good they might just be nicked.

Also as I've said a lot over the years I do think there's fundamental issues of psychology here. The far right can exploit a fundamental hack in humans of tapping into the base level system 1 thinking, whilst politicians looking to actually do good in the country, especially so on the left where everything is a big holistic mess, have to try and get people to sit down and listen for a substantial chunk of time to engage their system 2 brain.

I mentioned in the other thread that I think fandoms are a really important way to understanding the world right now - and I've read sports journalists say they think it is only a matter of time before football clubs turn off all access for the media. That one of the big clubs will basically only do official club content plus fan generated content and the best the media will be able to do is report what they see. I can't help but wonder if we're heading in the same direction with politics too: party social media account, YouTube, streamers, influencers etc. There's a whole infrastructure that many people - at least the most enthusiastic - never need to go anywhere else.

I have seen some reform councils banning the media. Ironic considering how keen they've traditionally been to whinge about free speech. But we all know what that meant.
Really does seem to be something where we need a law passing demanding media access.

[Josquius]

You cannot view this attachment.

I  found this interesting.
Seen a fair bit of chat about too comparing her to the former Labour councillor who was acquitted of making threats against Nazis- which he clearly did do, but were judged to be not meant literally.
Lots of talk of Connolly being a political prisoner, the two speed system, etc....

Again I can't help but think a big problem here is in how PSE is the "Do nothing" class and doesn't teach fundamental facts about how the justice system works. That the government don't decide trials has to be up there with understanding tax bands for fundamental shit people should know.

[Gups]

Court of Appeal has overturned the High Court's decision. Listened to the summary judgement and pretty scathing of Epping Council and Judge Eyre.

[Josquius]

Something interesting to play with. Search the transcripts of council meetings nationally and skip to the relevant part of the recording.

https://council-search.bellingcat.com/

[Tamas]

In a mini "alternative" (meaning racist posts aren't purged) subreddit of my town, it was funny how quickly one of the flagshaggers revealed themselves. They got into an argument over the flags with another poster who never once mentioned racism as a critique, and the shagger gammon took about 2 replies to arrive at "well if you are so happy with all the illegal immigrants you can house a few" or somesuch. That cat got out of the bag pretty quickly.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

so? it's a democratically valid opinion to be absolutely done with mass migration and wanting them to f off.

edit: clarification: it's the sentiment that this madness of massmigration needs to stop because it is absolutely nefast for the receiving society.
Incitement to violence is obviously a no-no

[Tamas]

so? it's a democratically valid opinion to be absolutely done with mass migration and wanting them to f off.

edit: clarification: it's the sentiment that this madness of massmigration needs to stop because it is absolutely nefast for the receiving society.
Incitement to violence is obviously a no-no

The thing is the flagraiser movement publicly is offended at the notion that they would be doing this as an anti-migration stunt. They claim it has nothing to do with migration and all to do with patriotic pride.

[Tamas]

Every Reform thing no matter how minor continues to be top of the front page news in The Guardian. Ér have to face it - fascist populist politics live in an excellent symbiosis with media - just like Trump in the US. Their triumph is inevitable. Not until they destroy their public view via prolonged incompetence will we get rid of them for a while.

[Sheilbh]

Eh?
We weren't talking about Labour policy. We were talking about the protests.
Are they organic local protests?
Could be. Though always pays to keep an eye out for far right agitators. They're keen to build this stuff.

On Labour policy, I don't know how you understand that I think Labour shouldn't deal with it. They clearly should. But they shouldn't just accept the fascist framing of it. They should prioritise completely different things- cutting off the flow through international collaboration and better internal controls on work rather than punishing refugees to try and disuade them.

I don't think those are the solutions and I don't think they would help politically. What I mean is more that I think this can sometimes be the left/liberal version of "x to own the libs". I think it's basically negative polarisation if the wrong people raise an issue very often there's a lot of reluctance to even engage, I think because of fear of "framing". So the first instinct of a lot is to deny it's a problem at all, then say it's weird they're so obsessed with x weird issue, then they'll say we need to deal with the actual underlying issue, then they panic into trying something - and then they lose the next election. I think a lot of that could be avoided if they cared less about appearing to agree or legitimise with a bad person and looking at the issue itself (and either acting on it or arguing back on the issue itself - not the discourse or pearl clutching).

But I thought this by Peter Hyman was very interesting. He was head of strategy and a major speechwriter for Blair for 12 years from when Blair became PM to just before he stepped down and became a headteacher - and recently spent all of 2024 attending Trump rallies and speaking to people attending them as he's doing a bit project on stopping right-wing populism. I'm not totally sold on his analysis of Starmer but basically 100% agree on the points in section 3 on small boats and asylum hotels - both on analysis and proposed solution:

This autumn, the Labour government needs to change the story fundamentally. Change its mindset, its way of communicating and its sense of urgency.

In this post, I touch on five ways it could start to do this. In future posts I will elaborate on some of these themes.

1. Reconnect to Labour's core purpose

After a difficult first year, with many MPs and Labour supporters going on holiday fatalistic about the future, the key task this autumn is for the government to reignite a belief that there is a big, progressive project that is worth fighting for.

The so-called centre ground of politics is not static. It moves depending on which ideas are taking hold. That consensus can be built around the beliefs of the Right or the Left. The point of any Labour government is to move the centre of gravity to the Left. This may be an obvious statement but it is not currently how things are seen. To achieve this requires a combination of ideas, policies and arguments that shift the debate in progressive directions: tackling inequality, giving working people a fairer deal, breaking down the barriers to opportunity, tackling crime and anti-social behaviour.

The best way of judging whether this is working is analysing what right wing opponents need to do in order to win back power. In 2010, after 13 years of a Labour government, the Tories under Cameron and Osborne had to agree to two Labour approaches, above all, to be credible: a publicly funded, free-at-the-point-of-use health service and a liberal attitude to personal lifestyles, including gay rights. That was because on both issues Labour had won the argument.

Today Labour needs the confidence to articulate its driving purpose and the radical reforms to achieve it. It needs to show how workers' rights, rail nationalisation, reform of the NHS, a rise in living wage, investment in new infrastructure, reform of the state, add up to a fundamental change in the balance of power in this country towards working people. This has to start now and build to May next year. Without it, there will be few compelling reasons to vote Labour in vital elections.

2. Reposition Starmer as the opportunity Prime Minister - not the security one

It's not enough for Labour to show more confidence about its programme. Starmer will have to change his approach to regain the initiative.

Starmer is an 'opportunity' Prime Minister forced to become a 'security' one. And that's why the government's narrative is seen by some to be elusive.

Let me explain.

You only have to watch Starmer engaging with young people involved in Lewis Hamilton's charity to see his passion for aspiration and opportunity. Or hear him talk about his brother's difficulty learning to see how much he cares about treating everyone with dignity.

In opposition, it was the same. Those in the audience for his opportunity mission speech came away saying: "This is his story. This is Keir at his best."

People have taken to asking: 'what is Starmer's irreducible core?" It is a question I remember that was thrown at Blair at a similar point. With all the rough edges and compromises of government, people want to know what the Prime Minister really believes in his heart.

Starmer's irreducible core was there for all to see in that opportunity speech:

"To fight – at every stage, for every child – the pernicious idea that ba,ckground equals destiny. That your circumstances, who you are, where you come from, who you know, might shape your life more than your talent, your effort and your enterprise. Breaking that link, that's what Labour is for. I've always felt that and it runs very deep for me. So, I promise you this: whatever the obstacles to opportunity, wherever the barriers to hope, my Labour Government will tear them down. We will break the link between where you start in life and where you end up. The two fundamental questions we must now ask: are we keeping pace with the future, preparing all our children to face it? And – are we prepared to confront the toxic divides that maintain the class ceiling?"

This is the animating idea that the government has found so elusive. It is the authentic Starmer, and authenticity matters more than ever to a cynical public.

Privately, I saw him most animated when he was talking about looking people in the eye in Grimsby or Burnley (or one of the many towns needing a boost) and knowing that a Labour government had helped them to change their lives for the better.

But there have been few moments when this has been on show in the last few months. Instead, the security Prime Minister has taken hold. Understandable in part. The world is insecure, more so with Trump in the White House. Defence is now a big issue; borders and boats remain the key driver of rising support for populism and are obviously dominating the political agenda at the moment. Cost of living pressures still blight too many lives.

But a message solely focused on security will never be sufficient either to inspire or to provide the momentum that a government needs. It plays into fear, when people crave hope. It plays defence when Labour needs to go on the offensive. It promises the impossible, for real security in a world of chaotic change, is never going to be fully delivered. Security is a foundation. But it is not enough.

The excuse often given for this downbeat message, is that 'we've got to meet voters where they are at.' The implication being that a message that is more hopeful will appear tin-eared to people's current struggles – a fantastical glimpse into an unattainable future. But that is to misread, for example, Trump's victory. His multiracial, working-class coalition was built largely on aspiration and hope. True, there was a tough security message about the border. But the hundreds of Trump supporters I spoke to before the election, all believed that he was offering a way forward for their families – that to Make America Great Again, was also to make their families thrive again. However difficult people's current situation, everyone needs light at the end of the tunnel. In an age of insecurity, the fightback comes from opportunity.

And it's opportunity that ultimately beats Reform, because a party so wedded to the past, will never successfully compete for the future. Yes, Labour has to neutralise the boats issue, but it will ultimately get the edge over Farage not on this territory but offering an aspirational future in which people feel they have real prospects of a better life.

An opportunity framing gives the government's programme real potency – and makes good on its mandate to be the party of change.

But only if there is radical reform that disrupts the status quo and removes the barriers to opportunity.

That is why curriculum and assessment reform is so crucial to prepare young people properly for the future. It is why the government must return to welfare reform and redesign the system to extend opportunity and give people the dignity of a decent job. It is why reforming the state - devolving power, harnessing technology, joining up government – must not be done for its own sake, but for a single-minded purpose, to unlock fresh opportunities in every part of the country.

And crucially the investment announced in the spending review now needs to be accompanied by a people strategy – the people who will build the infrastructure as well as those who will benefit from it. Education and skills remains the missing piece in the government's strategy for growth and national renewal.

Starmer cares about opportunity. He embodies working class aspiration. His life is testimony to the belief that hard work should be rewarded. Now is a good time for him to break free from an overly-scripted security message that stifles his true calling.

His opportunity is to show day in day out that the purpose of his premiership is to fight for the aspirations of working people across Britain. Never flinching from tearing down the barriers that get in the way.

3. Think of boats and hotels as if it was the Covid Vaccine Taskforce

If boats and hotels are taken off the table, the oxygen goes from Reform, and there can be a more rational debate about immigration. Labour has got to stop believing that the painfully slow grind of the Home Office, overly cautious lawyers, and traditional diplomacy is going to do the job.

Yes, there has been some progress. But the issue needs to be gripped with the urgency of a national emergency. As the Danish government has shown, effective action is the only and best way of neutralising it. The Covid Vaccine Taskforce is a good model: a crack, multidisciplinary team with the resources, the tools and the political backing to do whatever it takes. Most of all a team that is backed to take risks, to cut through the inertia and get the job done.

Gripping this will mean creating an effective operation completely separate from the Home Office, and a better deal with France. It will mean arguing for and building a national consensus behind key principles. Eg a) Britain should take its fair share of asylum seekers through orderly, legal routes b) Coming on a small boat will never lead to a successful asylum claim c) Hotels should never house asylum seekers - proper reception centres should house them, so they are not dispersed across the country d) Speed matters - processing claims and then acting on the results must take days not months or years e) We should know who is coming and going from our country so digital identity cards should be introduced immediately.

4. Focus on long-term strategy not just short term tactics.

There will always be urgent crises to grip, like boats. But that does not mean this government should be short term, hand to mouth, like the last one.

At the last election, and after 14 years in power, the Tories had no story to tell about what they had achieved in government. That's because it was fixated with media headlines not real impact. Starmer framed his leadership as an 'end to sticking plaster politics' and this should guide the government's approach to making lasting change. The best route to success at the next election is to build up a record of real accomplishments. That won't be sufficient but it will be the foundation for re-election.

To achieve this requires the infrastructure of strategy to be working smoothly.

Number 10 needs the structures and meetings to force joined up, medium and long term thinking.

For example, there should be proper time to discuss the big political strategy questions of the coming year.
    How does Starmer's Conference speech and Reeve's Budget come together in one powerful argument about Britain's future?
    How does Labour move the economic narrative from one solely about black holes to a story about the new type of economy being built and a dynamic approach to growth and raising living standards?
    How does Starmer regain personal momentum, show strength and reverse his poll numbers?
    What is the nine month strategy for winning the May elections, particularly in Scotland and Wales?

Note: None of these big questions obsess about Reform. The key is for Labour to get its own strategy, policy and communications working better in the coming months rather than being pushed onto the back foot by the latest antics of Farage.

5. Take more risks with communication

Given Starmer and the Labour Party's poll ratings, Labour needs to start communicating in different ways.

The current problems include:
    Too much reactive comms and not enough strategic comms
    Too much legacy media and not enough digital media (young people think the PM is invisible on social media - the reality is that he appears, but he's not saying anything that is memorable enough for young people - or anyone else - to clock it)
    Too little attempt to win big arguments eg too little explanation of the rationale for welfare changes
    Too few occasions when the PM is seen to be engaging in real debates with the public where he is properly challenged.
    Too many one off events, announcements and not clusters of interventions that reinforce each other

In the attention economy, the Prime Minister has the advantage of power and a lot of control over the agenda, and the disadvantage that he is not a small insurgent opposition party - like Reform - that can say whatever it likes.

Labour needs to use its governing power to spark debates and arguments on its own terms; lifting the lid on its thinking and engaging the public in a national conversation about the issues that matter most.

I will be writing more on these themes in the weeks to come.

By Christmas, people need to look back at this period as the time when a pugnacious Opportunity Prime Minister was putting forward radical long term changes on education, welfare and the state - and tackling the boats crisis - in a way that starts to bring back some optimism to the country.

In short, a government that has changed the story, with the outlines of a New Britain emerging and a widely held belief that there's a credible roadmap for getting there.

I'd odd on asylum I think the ground is moving anyway. Two former Labour Home Secretaries saying the UK might need to suspend the ECHR to address the asylum issue. A piece today citing Ken MacDonald - pupil of Helena Kennedy, co-founder of the leading human rights barristers' chambers, former Lib Dem peer, Keir Starmer's predecessor as Director of Public Prosecutions saying the fundamental problem is the Refugee Convention and how its been interpreted (plus parliamentary sovereignty making fixing it fairly easy. The FT and Economist doing big pieces on how the international (and British) asylum system has broken and is no longer fit for purpose.

I think respectable opinion is on the move, with lots of cover for people's views to start "evolving".

I'm all over with this.
Its definitely true that Farage is "cheating". Running around during summer whilst everyone is away. Really seems to me its a problem in the British system where so much runs on tradition and the way things have always been that when we get an establishment anti-establishment figure like Farage he will just exploit the gaping loopholes.
Others either need to recognise gentlemanly behaviour is dead and start doing this too, or actively codify the rules to say political activity in August is forbidden (with the world having moved on quite a bit most likely the former).

So I don't think it's cheating It is something Blair did. When you're in opposition during a parliamentary session it's really difficult to get much attention - because there are votes, there's PMQs, there are cabinet divides, there are crises. The government has power. It can do things, it responds to the day-to-day crisis and can set the agenda to a huge extent. Outside of conference season there should be relatively few spaces for opposition parties to seize the agenda - and the big one are recesses. Blair took advantage, Farage is.

And as noted in the article - the way to combat that would be if the government had a lot of activity or a strategy. For the second summer running they haven't. And for the second summer running I actually think what's mainly from the government has been self-harm. After the election (after 1.3% growth in the first half of 2024), for political purposes, they pushed a big line on how it was far worse than they'd expected and there'd be tough decisions - which everyone read as tax hikes - this was followed by a precipitous drop in consumer and business confidence surveys. This year just as growth seemed to be taking hold and there was a little bit of confidence returning, someone (the Teasury denies its them) has spent the entire summer kite flying different tax proposals: wealth tax, tax on pensions, NI on rental income, windfall taxes. It's anecdotal at this stage but again lots of reports that it's spooked business and investors. I get the focus on Farage and finding it frustrating - I am astonished at how bad at the basics this government are.

I think there's a bit of a problem though in giving the impression of speaking off the cough, not watching your words, etc... is a lot easier if you're especially trying to position yourself as a cunt, and offending people is by design.
To take Corbyn as the closest parallel on the other side, he does have to be a lot more careful in what he says as he is trying to position himself as a nice guy- hence when he  condones terrorists or Putin, or 7 out of 10s the EU, it has huge consequences.

I don't think that's the difference. The challenge Corbyn had was that he was trying to lead one of the big two parties - that was as both MPs and members really pro-EU and at the MP/elite level very strongly supportive of NATO etc. He had to reconcile himself to the democratic will of the Labour Party.

I'd add that I think that on Europe especially that was a catastrophic decision. Had Coryn and Labour decided to back Theresa May's deal, I think he'd have become PM.

Its fundamentally far more easier to destroy than to create. When you're positioning yourself as on the outside and wanting to destroy things then it's a lot easier than having to argue actual productive alternative policies- always an issue for the opposition as if they're too good they might just be nicked.

Maybe.

I keep thinking that one big advantage the far and radical right have at the moment is that they can imagine an alternative. I think everyone excepts we're at the end of the end of history - the old model is dead/dying.

Also as I've said a lot over the years I do think there's fundamental issues of psychology here. The far right can exploit a fundamental hack in humans of tapping into the base level system 1 thinking, whilst politicians looking to actually do good in the country, especially so on the left where everything is a big holistic mess, have to try and get people to sit down and listen for a substantial chunk of time to engage their system 2 brain.

I'm always very suspicious to analysis that boils down to "people on my side are simply smarter, more thoughtful, morally more correct and considerably more handsome"

I'm not sure the left can claim to be doing system 2 thinking, given that the big idea they're very fond of at the minute is how a one off wealth tax on financial assets would fix literally everything. But also I think "system 2" thinking is a huge problem. I think it is what leads to our needing to consider issues holistically and consult and engage with stakeholders and maybe we address issues through a series of assessments and nudges and micro-targetted policies.

I don't think that divide is even very helpful - I think fundamentally our political class have become uncomfortable with making choices and explaining trade-offs to the public. System 1 deny there are any trade-offs, system 2 think that if you can basically avoid trade-offs through complexity.

I have seen some reform councils banning the media. Ironic considering how keen they've traditionally been to whinge about free speech. But we all know what that meant.
Really does seem to be something where we need a law passing demanding media access.

I don't think law is an answer to much but I certainly don't think it's an answer to this

Every Reform thing no matter how minor continues to be top of the front page news in The Guardian. Ér have to face it - fascist populist politics live in an excellent symbiosis with media - just like Trump in the US. Their triumph is inevitable. Not until they destroy their public view via prolonged incompetence will we get rid of them for a while.

What's this about? I had a look at the Guardian, Times and BBC fronts and none of them had anything about Farage or Reform.

[Josquius]

I don't think those are the solutions and I don't think they would help politically. What I mean is more that I think this can sometimes be the left/liberal version of "x to own the libs". I think it's basically negative polarisation if the wrong people raise an issue very often there's a lot of reluctance to even engage, I think because of fear of "framing". So the first instinct of a lot is to deny it's a problem at all, then say it's weird they're so obsessed with x weird issue, then they'll say we need to deal with the actual underlying issue, then they panic into trying something - and then they lose the next election. I think a lot of that could be avoided if they cared less about appearing to agree or legitimise with a bad person and looking at the issue itself (and either acting on it or arguing back on the issue itself - not the discourse or pearl clutching).

"Own the libs" means setting out to do petty useless, or even self harming, stuff that serves no purpose but to upset left wingers.
I don't think actual efforts to solve refugee issues qualify here.

A key part of the solution absolutely does lie with safer routes for refugees. If you just rely on metaphorically putting up a higher wall at the border some people will continue to find a way around. You'd need full North Korea level militarisation of the coast to stop the boats via these means.

And cracking down on the bulk of illegal immigrants by targeting the employers who exploit them will also help demonstrate doing something, plus improve the perception of basic fairness.

But I thought this by Peter Hyman was very interesting. He was head of strategy and a major speechwriter for Blair for 12 years from when Blair became PM to just before he stepped down and became a headteacher - and recently spent all of 2024 attending Trump rallies and speaking to people attending them as he's doing a bit project on stopping right-wing populism. I'm not totally sold on his analysis of Starmer but basically 100% agree on the points in section 3 on small boats and asylum hotels - both on analysis and proposed solution:


I'd odd on asylum I think the ground is moving anyway. Two former Labour Home Secretaries saying the UK might need to suspend the ECHR to address the asylum issue. A piece today citing Ken MacDonald - pupil of Helena Kennedy, co-founder of the leading human rights barristers' chambers, former Lib Dem peer, Keir Starmer's predecessor as Director of Public Prosecutions saying the fundamental problem is the Refugee Convention and how its been interpreted (plus parliamentary sovereignty making fixing it fairly easy. The FT and Economist doing big pieces on how the international (and British) asylum system has broken and is no longer fit for purpose.

Wow, he's optimistic.
I hope he's right. That Labour does have an actual plan. As they do seem to be just thrashing and flailing.

I would agree solving the asylum hotels issue would be good. However I'm not seeing much sign of a shift to refugee centres. Just talk about closing the hotels.
Even if they can improve processing speeds 100 fold there's still a need to temporarily house asylum seekers.

I would also question whether massively improving things there will really do much to remove oxygen from reform. The problem there is no matter how much Labour can tackle the issue it will never be good enough.
Refugees are always going to come, there'll always be stuff that can be spun the way the fascists want.

Its absolutely true the global refugee system needs an overall- but again where is the chat about this? There's talk about the UK unilaterally deciding we don't like human rights, but nothing about reform.

A key issue that always gets missed in all this talk about Labour heading off Reform too is that its completely blind to the other side. The Greens, SNP, Plaid, in some quarters the Lib Dems.... the more Labour leans into "Look we can be nasty too" the more they're losing voters here.
It could well be this is a viable strategy. Win educated cities with 40% of the vote rather than 70% of the vote and its the same thing, its number of seats that matter which means targeting shit towns susceptible to fascism. But I've seen even in these places the Greens and Lib Dems can get right up into the high single digits that can really make the difference against fascism.

So I don't think it's cheating It is something Blair did. When you're in opposition during a parliamentary session it's really difficult to get much attention - because there are votes, there's PMQs, there are cabinet divides, there are crises. The government has power. It can do things, it responds to the day-to-day crisis and can set the agenda to a huge extent. Outside of conference season there should be relatively few spaces for opposition parties to seize the agenda - and the big one are recesses. Blair took advantage, Farage is.

I said "Cheating", not cheating

Blair doing the same....eh...ish. You could argue it was a step in that direction for sure, but not the same.
Blair's frequent press conferences were at least tied to policy launches, his summer campaigning was there but again not as constant.

 

I'm always very suspicious to analysis that boils down to "people on my side are simply smarter, more thoughtful, morally more correct and considerably more handsome"

I'm not sure the left can claim to be doing system 2 thinking, given that the big idea they're very fond of at the minute is how a one off wealth tax on financial assets would fix literally everything. But also I think "system 2" thinking is a huge problem. I think it is what leads to our needing to consider issues holistically and consult and engage with stakeholders and maybe we address issues through a series of assessments and nudges and micro-targetted policies.

I don't think that divide is even very helpful - I think fundamentally our political class have become uncomfortable with making choices and explaining trade-offs to the public. System 1 deny there are any trade-offs, system 2 think that if you can basically avoid trade-offs through complexity.

A lot of it is true though.
Its interesting that even the far right recognise this themselves. Online they're really keen to try and get people to call them stupid, I've seen really often they will clutch their pearls and get defensive about this when nobody has even said it. Its up there with "You just call everyone who disagrees with you far right!" for them.
Its something I find really interesting that I've never seen properly looked at.

Its not about being stupid vs. smart. There's a very good case to be made tapping into system 1 is actually the smart thing to do rather than wasting your time with thought out plans.

Those relying on system 2 thinking don't necessarily have things right. Its possible to have an incredibly detailed and incredibly stupid plan. Its more about how you sell it. Tapping into logic vs. emotion.
And when dealing with immigration and you've got one guy going "Foreigners are bad. Kick them out" then as stupid as it is a thought out plan against this is going to be a hard sell. Labour need to offer something for the future that really clicks with people in the same way the cult of victimhood's simple solutions to complex problems do.

I
I don't think law is an answer to much but I certainly don't think it's an answer to this

What would you suggest then?

[Jacob]

I'm unsurprised the Guardian is supporting Reform implicitly. They seem to have a high degree of useful idiots when it comes to the rise of the reactionary right.