Addressing an audience of journalists and political observers, Jenrick, the Reform UK Treasury Spokesperson, used the platform to detail a sweeping policy agenda centred on tackling productivity stagnation, restructuring the welfare system and securing border sovereignty.

Jenrick outlined a foundational economic philosophy designed to appeal directly to middle and lower-income workers, positioning Reform UK as the explicit champion of the 80% of the population that constitutes the active, hard-working core of the country. He sought to draw a sharp rhetorical contrast between the two traditional major parties, characterising the current Westminster landscape as an ideological failure that leaves ordinary workers entirely unrepresented.

In his assessment, British politics has devolved into an ecosystem that caters only to extreme opposite ends of the socioeconomic spectrum. Jenrick defined the Labour Party as the political vehicle for “Benefit Street,” focused heavily on welfare expansion, while accusing the Conservative Party of protecting the corporate and aristocratic interests of “Belgravia,” an affluent district in central London.

“Not Benefit Street, not Belgravia,” Jenrick stated, asserting that the vast majority of citizens who go out and work hard everyday currently lack a government that is on their side.

To rectify this imbalance, he argued that Reform UK’s economic strategy is built on structural equity, ensuring that those who contribute productively are treated fairly and respectfully, rather than being squeezed by taxation to fund state inefficiencies or elite privileges.

Family Policy, Welfare Overhaul, and the Two-Child Benefit Cap

On domestic policy, Jenrick addressed the party’s stance on the controversial two-child benefit cap, clarifying a shift in approach dictated by the UK’s current financial reality. While Reform UK had initially backed removing or adjusting the cap for households where parents are in work, Jenrick explained that economic constraints mean the party does not support removing the cap now. He stated definitively that the country simply cannot afford to lift the cap, framing its retention as a necessary act of fiscal discipline.

Despite acknowledging these state budget limits, Jenrick levied heavy criticism against his former party’s record, claiming that the Conservatives did very little for the family during their fourteen years in overment, failing to deliver on a core tenet of Tory ideology. He argued that a genuine pro-family policy must adapt to economic limitations rather than relying on state handouts, which risk worsening the welfare deficit.

Instead of direct welfare expansion, Reform intends to support working parents by lowering baseline living costs through supply-side interventions. Jenrick argued that the most effective way to assist families without straining public finances is to bring domestic energy bills down, implement targeted tax reductions for working people, and introduce measures to lower rental costs across the housing market – all of which could be achieved by getting public spending under control and cutting waste. This approach is designed to position Reform UK as the party of workers and productivity rather than state dependency.

Party Dynamics and Farage’s Leadership

The event offered an inside look into how Reform UK operates internally compared to the traditional Westminster structures. Jenrick praised the party leader Nigel Farage as a decisive figure who actually listens to both his colleagues and the public. While acknowledging that he and Farage do not agree on every single policy point, Jenrick explained that internal discipline relies on a strict standard where disagreements are handled behind closed doors rather than played out in public.

Jenrick contrasted Farage’s long-term consistency on domestic issues with Prime Minister Keir Starmer, whom he criticised for being consistent only on international law which Jenrick argued he used to give away the Chagos Islands and betray British veterans. He emphasised that a stable government requires absolute certainty from leadership, stating that with Farage, voters know exactly where he stands/

Furthermore, Jenrick claimed that whereas the Conservative Cabinet had devolved into a mere rubber-stamping body, the Reform UK leadership operates as a genuine decision-making body where real debates take place. He noted that while the Conservatives remained consistently divided over the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Net Zero targets, Reform UK’s total alignment on these issues gives the public genuine hope that the party can form a stable, cohesive government. Jenrick also indicated that the party’s internal composition is stabilising, stating he does not expect or seek further Tory defections following the party’s internal May 7th deadline.

The “Makerfield Model” and the Personal Impact of Defection

Looking ahead to upcoming electoral tests, Jenrick focused heavily on the Makerfield by-election, expressing confidence that Reform UK would secure the seat. He highlighted Reform candidate Robert Kenyon, a local veteran and plumber deeply embedded in his community, as the exact archetype for the party’s broader electoral ambitions. Jenrick stated that the party’s immediate mission is to replicate this model nationwide, finding 650 candidates who share Kenyon’s real-world background and community connections.

His message to the Makerfield electorate was to avoid being taken for granted or treated as mere political stepping stone for Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham to return to Parliament. Jenrick took a direct swipe at Burnham, referring to him as the King of the North who spends a significant amount of time trying to flee to the South, describing him as a standard Westminster insider rather than a true regional outsider.

Reflecting on his own political shift, Jenrick admitted that leaving a party he had been part of for nearly 30 years was a tough decision that had strained valuable personal friendships, although maintained that he didn’t regret it nor did he miss the social circles as making a difference was more important.

Jenrick linked his policy positions on national sovereignty and domestic economic revival, stating that border control is the mandatory starting point for addressing Britain’s current economic model. When asked to identify the single most critical action required to regain control of the UK’s borders, Jenrick’s response was definitive: leave the ECHR and regain absolute parliamentary sovereignty. He described previous Conservative border policies as an exercise in merely managing the symptoms of the crisis rather than solving the core legal hurdles, stating that Britain must be prepared to fully exit foreign treaties to protect its own laws.

This legal reclamation of the border forms the strategic baseline for his broader macroeconomic points regarding population movement and productivity. Jenrick stated that for 25 years, the UK has pursued an unsustainable policy of mass migration, claiming that the influx under Boris Johnson’s administration primarily consisted of low-wage, low-skilled workers who did not contribute to high-value productivity. According to Jenrick, this reliance on cheap imported labour has structurally damaged the UK economy by discouraging businesses from investing in domestic talent and advanced technology. Instead of automating processes or training British citizens, companies have relied on an endless supply of cheap numbers, which has directly caused poor national productivity rates.

To reverese this long-term decline, Jenrick stated that migration cuts must be coupled with a radical overhaul of the welfare system to address the country’s massive crisis of economic inactivity, which is currently approaching 10 million people. This structural strategy targets both ends of the demographic spectrum simultaneously, looking to re-engage the one million young people classified as NEETs (Not Education, Employment, or Training) as well as older individuals who have chosen to retire early.

By implementing robust welfare incentives and drastically reducing the availability of foreign labour, a Reform government aims to compel businesses to reinvest in British skills and adopt efficiency-boosting technologies like robotics to drive catch-up growth. Crucially, Jenrick noted that the party also intends to prevent periods of net emigration, ensuring that sustained periods where more productive citizens leave the country than enter are brought to an end.

Jenrick tied this dual policy focus directly to cross-party governance, stating that both Boris Johnson and Keir Starmer wasted massive parliamentary majorities, and he urged voters to cast aside alongside long-standing party loyalties. When asked to evaluate which potential Labour figure, Andy Burnham, Angela Rayner, or Wes Streeting, would be best for the country, Jenrick argued that it would make no difference as they all represent a failed establishment. He concluded by asserting that the mainstream “uniparty” has comprehensively failed, and that Reform UK offers an exciting opportunity to forge something entirely new over a rigorous five-year plan of fiscal discipline, immigration reduction and deregulation.

Laila Cunningham on Polarisation and the Reality of London Politics

Laila Cunningham, Reform UK’s candidate for the London Mayoral election, shifted the focus to the specific structural challenges of campaigning in the capital. She described London as an entirely different political “beast” where public perception of the party remains highly polarised, driven largely by social media echo chambers and partisan rhetoric.

Cunningham shared an encounter from the campaign trail on a local basketball court, where a young resident, upon discovering her party affiliation, reacted with immediate shock, stating that they believed Reform UK intended to deport their mother.

“People get stuck in a tunnel vision that Reform is completly anti-immigrant, that they are going to deport everyone, and that they are racist,” Cunningham observed, positioning herself as the ideal candidate to actively dismantle that narrative across the city.

As the daughter of Egyptian immigrants who arrived in the UK during the 1960s, Cunningham rejected the premise that an ethnic minority background requires an alignment with high immigration volumes. She stated that her parents came to the UK specifically for a “British country, British values and British way of life”, noting that had they desired a quasi-Egyptian system, they would have remained in Egypt.

Cunningham stated there is zero logical contradiction between being the daughter of immigrants and advocating for strictly controlled, legal immigration. Concluding her remarks, she delivered a bleak assessment of the capital’s trajectory, stating that despite London fundamentally being the best city in the world, it has ceased to be place of opportunity for ordinary residents, transforming instead into a difficult and unpredictable environment under the current political leadership

In June 1995, John Major reached for one of the most dramatic weapons available to a wounded Prime Minister: he told his critics to “put up or shut up.” Facing months of internal briefing, division over Europe and a party that seemed to be slowly consuming itself, Major resigned as Conservative leader while remaining Prime Minister, forcing his opponents either to challenge him openly or fall back into line. He won the contest against John Redwood, but the deeper weakness remained. Less than two years later, the Conservatives were swept from office.

The comparison with Keir Starmer is not exact, but it is now impossible to ignore. Starmer has not resigned as Labour leader in order to recontest the job. He has not invited a ballot. But his message to Labour MPs is strikingly similar: there is a process, use it – or stop destabilising the Government.

That was the essence of his statement to Cabinet today. Downing Street said Starmer told Cabinet Ministers he was not resigning, that Labour’s leadership process had not been triggered, and that the country expected the Government to “get on with governing.” He also warned that the previous 48 hours had been destabilising and had carried an economic cost.

This is the modern version of Major’s gamble. Starmer is trying to expose the gap between dissent and organisation. Labour MPs may be angry. Some may want him gone. But unless a rival can gather the required support and step forward, the Prime Minister’s argument is simple: noise is not a process.

The number matters less than the name

The danger for Starmer is that the numbers are moving. More than 80 Labour MPs have now reportedly called for him to resign or set out a timetable for departure, while Miatta Fahnbulleh and Jess Phillips have become the first ministers to resign and urge him to go. Yet the central problem for his opponents remains unresolved: a leadership challenge does not begin simply because enough MPs are unhappy. Under Labour’s rules, a contest can be triggered if the leader resigns or if 20% of Labour MPs nominate a challenger.

That distinction is crucial. A rebellion against a leader is not the same thing as a campaign for an alternative. Labour’s critics of Starmer appear to share a diagnosis – that the Prime Minister has lost public trust after damaging election results – but they do not yet appear to share a single prescription. Some look to Wes Streeting. Others may prefer Angela Rayner. Others would like time for Andy Burnham to return to Parliament. That division gives Starmer room to survive, at least for the next couple of hours.

This is where the Major analogy becomes useful. Major did not win in 1995 because he resolved the underlying problems of his party. He won because he forced his critics to reveal whether they had the numbers, the candidate and the courage to act. Starmer is attempting something similar without calling a contest himself. His line is: if you can replace me, do it properly. If not, stop weakening the Government.

Tomorrow’s King’s Speech has changed meaning

Under normal circumstances, the King’s Speech is a programme for government. It marks the start of a new parliamentary session and sets out the Government’s proposed policies and legislation. This year’s speech is scheduled – some may say purposefully – for Wednesday 13 May 2026.

But tomorrow it will be read through a very different lens. It will not simply be judged as a legislative agenda. It will be judged as a survival document.

The expected programme is not insignificant. House of Commons Library analysis suggests possible legislation on asylum reform, British Steel nationalisation, financial services, digital ID, Special Educational Needs and Disabilities reform, energy independence, water sector reform, the abolition of NHS England and wider reforms connected to the 10 Year Health Plan, as well as criminal justice and national security measures.

In calmer times, that would be the story: a Government trying to move from diagnosis to delivery. In the current climate, every line will be read politically. Does the speech show grip? Does it speak to voters who have turned away from Labour? Does it give anxious MPs something to defend on doorsteps? Does it suggest that Starmer has heard the scale of anger inside and outside his party?

If the answer is yes, the King’s Speech may buy him time. If the answer is no, it may accelerate the sense that the Government is continuing in office but losing authority.

The market pressure changes the stakes

One of the most important differences between internal party drama and a governing crisis is that markets respond. Reuters reported that long term UK borrowing costs rose sharply today, with 20 year and 30 year gilt yields reaching 5.12% and 5.80% respectively, amid concern over political instability and the possibility of a change in fiscal direction.

That matters because it gives Starmer’s allies a second argument. They are not just saying a leadership contest would divide Labour. They are saying instability has consequences beyond Westminster. In that context, the Prime Minister’s defence becomes less about personal survival and more about continuity, fiscal credibility and national stability.

But that argument cuts both ways. If MPs conclude that Starmer himself has become the source of instability, then appeals to order may not save him. The strongest case for staying becomes weaker if the act of staying prolongs the crisis.

What happens next?

There are three likely phases.

First, Starmer will try to use the King’s Speech to reassert the basic function of government. The message will be discipline, delivery and contrast with opposition parties. He will want the debate to move from personality to programme.

Second, his critics will test whether the parliamentary numbers can be organised around one candidate. The key question is not how many MPs are unhappy. It is whether a credible challenger is prepared to own the challenge publicly.

Third, Cabinet behaviour becomes decisive. So far, the most visible Cabinet response has been public support, silence or ambiguity. But if senior ministers begin to conclude that the King’s Speech has not changed the mood, private pressure for an orderly transition could grow.

The immediate lesson from Major is clear: “put up or shut up” can win a contest, but it cannot by itself rebuild authority. Major forced his critics into the open and survived. Yet survival did not become renewal.

That is Starmer’s challenge now. Tomorrow’s King’s Speech must do more than fill the parliamentary timetable. It must give Labour MPs a reason to believe that the Prime Minister still has a route back to the country. Otherwise, the question will no longer be whether Starmer can silence his critics. It will be whether his critics can finally agree what comes after him.

(Picture: Simon Dawson/No 10 Downing Street)

Delivering the Attlee Foundation Lecture at King’s College London, former Conservative Prime Minister, Sir John Major offered a grave but carefully argued reflection on the condition of British democracy, the health of the international order, and the risks of political complacency at a moment of deep public disenchantment.

He began by addressing the apparent incongruity of a former Conservative Prime Minister delivering a lecture in honour of Clement Attlee. In truth, he suggested, there was nothing strange about it at all. Attlee, Major said, deserved admiration not only for the scale of his achievement, but for his courage, public spirit, and willingness to put country before party. The NHS, his wider commitment to public service, and his example of serious political leadership all still matter today.

That opening was about more than historical courtesy. It set up one of the defining themes of the lecture – that democratic politics works best when opponents treat one another as opponents, not enemies. Major drew a sharp distinction between mainstream political rivalry, and the politics of grievance and division. The true enemies of democratic parties, he argued, are “populist insurgents” who seek to inflame resentment, exaggerate real social problems, and then blame minorities for them. That, he said plainly, is ugly politics and should have no place in Britain.

Mainstream politics must not lose its nerve

A central argument of the speech was that Britain’s mainstream parties have more in common than they often admit. Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats may differ on philosophy, priority, and policy, but they all broadly want stronger public services, economic wellbeing, secure defence, good housing, flourishing education and decent employment. In a liberal democracy, those are not radical aspirations but basic expectations.

The problem, Major suggested, is that too often those expectations are not being met. That failure is feeding disenchantment, and disenchantment creates danger. When the main democratic parties collectively struggle to command even half of public support in the polls, that is not merely a momentary party-political setback. It is a warning sign.

Major’s message was not that democracy has already failed, but that it cannot be assumed safe simply because it is long established. Around the world, he noted, democracy has been retreating for years, with autocrats steadily weakening democratic protections to entrench their own power. Britain is not immune. If mainstream politics is cast aside too casually, he warned, the space created may not be filled by other democrats.

That was one of the most striking passages in the lecture. Any voter tempted to rejoice at the collapse of Labour, the Conservatives, or the Liberal Democrats, he implied, should think carefully about what might come next. If the old democratic structures fall away, the replacement may be harsher, less accountable, and far less tolerant.

Reform must mean more than rhetoric

Major also turned his attention to the growing overuse of the language of reform.

Politicians often invoke reform to signal seriousness and renewal, but the word itself can conceal as much as it reveals. Reform means change, he said. Change means upheaval. Upheaval provokes opposition.

His instinct was not anti-reform, but sceptical of empty reformism. Before tearing up longstanding systems, politics should first show that it can make progress on the everyday questions that shape people’s lives. He listed a series of practical issues that remain unresolved: whether tax levels deter savings and investment, whether planning rules are blocking housing, whether the benefits system discourages work, whether the triple lock should be better targeted, whether Parliament should take stronger action against the misuse of social media, and how Britain can pay for the armed forces it needs.

“Populists trade on grievance…and then blame those ills on minority groups of a different race or religion. It is ugly politics and it should have no place in our country.”

In other words, there is no shortage of substantive policy work to be done. Yet Major also argued that the political system itself needs attention. Politics, he said, has a “grubby underbelly” and is long overdue for a spring clean.

He questioned whether political funding is being corrupted when large donors, with no obvious qualification beyond wealth, receive honours or privileged access to ministers. Donations, he said, should be capped to guard against undue influence. He rejected the idea of an elected House of Lords, warning that it would challenge the primacy of the Commons and create constitutional confusion rather than improve scrutiny. But he did open the door to a serious debate about the voting system, arguing that first-past-the-post is producing increasingly distorted outcomes as voting patterns fragment.

He also made the case that MPs who defect to another party should be required to face their constituents again. Constitutionally, MPs are elected as individuals. Politically, Major argued, voters choose them as party representatives. On that basis, logic and decency suggest they should seek a renewed mandate if they cross the floor.

A blunt verdict on Brexit

Perhaps the most politically sensitive intervention of the evening came when Major addressed Brexit. To applause from the audience, he said openly that Brexit had failed to deliver on its promises, and that the economic consequences had been serious. The loss of trade and tax revenue, he argued, has done real harm to public finances, public services and living standards.

Unlike the recent intervention by the Mayor of London, Sir Sadiq Khan, [BH1] he stopped short of advocating a return to the European Union in the near future, acknowledging the political and practical barriers. But he was unequivocal that Britain should rebuild its relationship with its European neighbours as quickly and as comprehensively as possible.

This sat within a broader argument about Britain’s strategic position in the world. Leaving the EU, he said, weakened the UK’s ability to operate between the great European and American power centres at precisely the moment when the United States was becoming more distant and more unpredictable.

The international order is fraying

Much of the lecture focused on foreign affairs, and here Major’s tone became darker still. He lamented the erosion of the post-war rules-based system – built in the aftermath of the Second World War through institutions, alliances and habits of co-operation that helped make the world safer, freer and more stable.

The US, in his account, once stood at the heart of that benign order. He spoke warmly of the tradition that ran from Truman and the Marshall Plan through to the close trust he experienced personally with President George H. W. Bush during the first Gulf War. But he argued that this inheritance is now under severe strain.

President Trump’s approach, Major said, has introduced a harsher and more transactional American posture, one driven by slogans of self-interest and marked by tariff increases, hostility towards allies and a more dismissive attitude to Europe. Vice President Vance’s claim that Europe poses a greater threat to freedom than Russia was, Major said, both offensive and absurd.

“If diplomacy, consultation and co-operation break down, we will be moving towards the law of the jungle – and in such a world, no country is safe.”

He was especially critical of the treatment of President Zelensky in Washington, describing the Ukrainian leader as having been ambushed rather than supported. More broadly, Major warned that if diplomacy, consultation and co-operation continue to break down, the world risks moving towards the law of the jungle – a world in which might is right and weaker nations are left exposed to the will of the powerful.

He also used the lecture to question how secure NATO’s guarantees would remain if the United States became less willing to shoulder its traditional responsibilities. Europe, he argued, must become more self-reliant in defence while remaining firmly within NATO. That means higher defence spending, tougher choices, and far closer co-ordination on procurement and military readiness.

Britain must speak honestly to allies

For all his criticism, Major was careful not to suggest that Britain should distance itself from America. The transatlantic alliance, he said, remains essential to British security and intelligence interests. But partnership should not mean deference.

He criticised the growing tendency to tiptoe around President Trump for fear of causing offence. Sovereign nations that behave in that way, he warned, will eventually be treated “not as allies but as subordinates”. Britain should speak truth to the United States when it disagrees – privately, respectfully, but firmly.

That belief in moral seriousness and statecraft was refreshingly articulated throughout the lecture. Britain, he argued, must continue to stand up for what is right, not simply what is expedient.

A guarded optimism for Sir John Major

For all its warnings, the speech did not end in despair. Asked in the Q&A where optimism could still be found, Major pointed to “the young”. They have, he said, been badly treated in many ways – burdened by debt, priced out of housing, and deprived of the stability earlier generations took for granted. Yet they are also more open, less prejudiced, more internationally minded, and more willing to embrace shared action on common problems.

That, for Major, is where hope lies.

His lecture cannot be seen a simple lament for a lost political culture or a fading international order. It was a inspirational call for democratic seriousness – for mainstream politics to recover its sense of service, for Britain to repair trust at home, and for liberal democracies to recover the confidence to defend their values abroad.

Prosperity and democratic stability do not survive on sentiment alone. They require work, honesty, co-operation and courage. If the UK and its allies fail to provide those things, others with darker intentions will be only too ready to fill the void.

This annual Attlee Lecture was organised by The Strand Group and the Attlee Foundation.

A seat that should have been secure fractured. Progressive voters splintered. Protest sentiment surged. Labour was pushed into an uncomfortable third place. The symbolism matters more than the arithmetic. It suggests that parts of Labour’s coalition no longer feel instinctively anchored to the party.

For Sir Keir Starmer, this is a political turning point. The tightly controlled approach often associated with his former chief strategist, Morgan McSweeney, was designed to neutralise risk and win power. It did that effectively in 2024. But the by-election suggests that a risk-averse and all too often chaotic style of governing may now be suppressing connection rather than strengthening it.

What lessons could Starmer learn in time for The King’s Speech?

The King’s Speech must therefore do more than outline legislation. It must demonstrate that Labour has listened – and that it is prepared to move from cautious consolidation to confident delivery. The king’s speech is a crucial moment for Labour’s future.

Here is what that would require in practice.

1. A Cost of Living Guarantee That Is Felt, Not Promised

On the doorstep, the language was not ideological. It was grounded in real life experiences: rent, food, debt, bills.

The Government’s growth narrative has not yet translated into personal reassurance. The King’s Speech could change that by introducing a Cost of Living and Household Security Bill structured around three pillars.

First, energy market protection. Strengthened regulatory powers for Ofgem to intervene on pricing practices, clearer tariff transparency rules and an automatic social tariff for low-income households would show immediate responsiveness.

Second, debt resilience. Expanding breathing-space protections and regulating high-cost credit providers more aggressively would position Labour as a shield against financial precarity.

None of this is headline-grabbing in isolation. Collectively, it would signal that growth is being converted into protection.

2. An NHS Access and Delivery Bill With Measurable Targets

The NHS conversation on the doorstep was not about structural reform. It was about appointments.

An NHS Access and Delivery Bill should focus narrowly and visibly on patient experience.

That could include statutory transparency requirements obliging local health systems to publish real-time data on GP appointment availability and waiting times. It could mandate a clear national recovery timetable for NHS dentistry, including reform of the dental contract to incentivise NHS provision rather than private drift.

Workforce measures should be specific: expanded training places tied to underserved areas, streamlined recognition of international qualifications and retention incentives in high-pressure specialisms.

Most importantly, the Government should attach measurable 12-month delivery benchmarks to the legislation. Without timelines, reform feels rhetorical.

3. A Credible Migration and Local Services Framework

Immigration emerged repeatedly in voter conversations, often intertwined with concerns about housing and public services.

The King’s Speech should therefore outline a Migration Control and Community Support Bill built on two parallel tracks.

On enforcement and processing, it should commit to significantly reducing asylum backlogs through expanded casework capacity and faster initial decision timelines. Clearer removal pathways for failed claims would reinforce credibility.

But equally important would be a Local Impact Fund, automatically triggered in areas experiencing sharp population increases. Funding for school places, primary care expansion and housing support must accompany policy changes.

This approach avoids hyperbole while acknowledging practical pressures. It positions Labour as serious, not reactive.

4. Institutional Reform and Political Integrity

Cynicism is not an abstract problem. It is a mobilising force.

A Democratic Standards and Accountability Bill could strengthen lobbying transparency, close loopholes around political donations and formalise clearer investigatory powers for parliamentary standards bodies.

Electoral safeguards – including measures to reinforce ballot secrecy and polling station integrity – would respond to concerns raised during the by-election itself.

Labour has historically defined itself as a reforming party. Reasserting that instinct would help counter the perception that politics is self-protective.

5. A Neighbourhood Renewal and Local Pride Act

One of the most striking features of the by-election was the emphasis on visible decline: fly-tipping, unkempt streets, unreliable buses.

Although the Government has distanced itself from ‘levelling up’, a Neighbourhood Renewal Act should equip councils with stronger enforcement powers against environmental crime, including increased fines and faster prosecution pathways.

It could also establish minimum service standards for local bus routes in underserved urban areas, backed by devolved funding settlements. Connectivity is not glamorous, but it is foundational to opportunity.

Finally, ring-fenced high street recovery grants tied to occupancy targets would demonstrate commitment to local economic vitality.

These measures may appear granular. That is precisely their strength. Voters measure competence in daily encounters with public space.

6. Reframing Growth as Progressive Mission

Perhaps the most politically sensitive lesson from Gorton and Denton is that some progressive voters now look elsewhere for moral clarity.

The King’s Speech should embed fairness metrics directly into the Government’s economic programme. That could mean legislating for annual inequality reporting linked to fiscal decisions, or tying industrial strategy funding to regional wage growth targets.

Explicitly connecting clean energy investment, manufacturing expansion and technology growth to job creation in towns that feel politically peripheral would reinforce Labour’s historic purpose.

This is not about creating a confidence surrounding their narrative vs ideological repositioning. Progressive voters need to feel that competence and conviction coexist.

A Moment That Demands Response

By-elections often amplify dissatisfaction. But they also clarify direction.

The coalition that brought Labour to power was broad. Keeping it intact requires more than disciplined messaging. It requires visible impact in people’s lives.

If the King’s Speech reads as cautious and technocratic, it risks confirming the sense of drift that underpinned the by-election result.

If instead it offers tangible cost-of-living protections, measurable NHS delivery, credible migration control paired with community investment, institutional reform, and neighbourhood renewal – framed within a confident progressive growth story – it could mark the start of a second phase of this Government.

Turning points are rarely announced in real time. But the result in Gorton and Denton has created one.

The only question now is whether Labour treats it as a setback to manage – or as an opportunity to introduce new measures to right the wrongs of its record in government thus far.

For Keir Starmer, there is still time to reset.

(Image: Rcsprinter123)

11.10: No.10 Director of Communications, Tim Allan has resigned

The sudden departure of Morgan McSweeney from the centre of government has exposed a fragility at the heart of Number 10 that goes well beyond one individual. In Westminster, the question now being asked is not simply who replaces him, but what Project Starmer actually is – and whether it can function without the figure who did so much to design and enforce it.

For the past four years, McSweeney was not some invisible hand quietly guiding events from the shadows. His presence was well known, widely felt, and often decisive. He was central to Labour’s transformation from a party traumatised by the 2019 defeat into a tightly disciplined election winning operation. His focus was rarely ideological in a traditional sense. Instead, Project Starmer was built as a reaction against what had come before – not Corbyn, not the Conservatives, not chaos, not risk.

At its core, Project Starmer fused fiscal caution, cultural restraint, institutional reassurance, and uncompromising message discipline. It was designed to signal seriousness after years of perceived excess, and stability after a Conservative era defined by volatility. The offer to the country was deliberately narrow but legible: competent, cautious, and safe. McSweeney built the operating system that made that possible.

That is why this weekend matters. This is not just a reshuffle or a staffing change. It is a stress test of whether Starmer’s leadership model can survive contact with the realities of governing.

The McSweeney method – and where it breaks

McSweeney’s real influence lay less in public strategy than in internal architecture. Decision making was centralised. The circle of trusted voices was deliberately small. Candidate selection, media handling, internal dissent, and political signalling were all tightly controlled. Labour had not operated with this level of discipline for a generation.

In opposition, it worked. The party detoxified its brand, neutralised Conservative attacks, reassured markets, and persuaded a wary electorate that it was safe to hand Labour the keys again. But campaigning is not governing. The traits that deliver clarity in opposition can quickly become liabilities in office.

The disorder seen over the weekend was not driven by ideological splits or factional warfare. It was organisational shock. Too much authority, judgement, and connective tissue sat with too few people. Even with Darren Jones appointed as Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, McSweeney’s exit has revealed how thin the senior operational bench in Number 10 really is.

Starmer’s dilemma: control or coalition

The appointment of Vidhya Alakeson and Jill Cuthbertson as joint Chiefs of Staff signals an attempt to rebalance the centre of power. It moves away from the singular authority that defined the McSweeney era and towards a more distributed leadership model inside Number 10.

Implicit in this shift is an admission that the conditions of government demand something different from the machinery of opposition. Project Starmer was engineered to win power by minimising risk and narrowing the party’s voice. In office, that same centralisation now threatens to slow decision making, narrow perspective, and insulate the centre from political reality.

Frustration has been building across the system. Ministers, backbenchers, metro mayors, and party stakeholders increasingly describe a culture that feels closed and transactional, where authority flows downwards but feedback struggles to travel back up. The joint Chiefs of Staff model appears designed to widen the aperture – bringing more policy depth, organisational experience, and internal connectivity into the heart of government.

The danger for Starmer is not an organised revolt, but something quieter and more corrosive: drift, disengagement, and the steady erosion of authority as momentum leaks away.

What if Starmer leaves Number 10?

As speculation about Starmer’s future grows, the weekend has inevitably reopened questions about Labour’s direction should his leadership end earlier than expected. Three broad paths stand out.

First, continuity.
A successor could attempt to preserve the core instincts of Project Starmer: fiscal caution, cultural restraint, institutional reassurance, and tight message control. This would calm markets and senior stakeholders, but without serious reform to how government operates, it would risk repeating the same weaknesses now exposed.

Second, a managerial pluralist turn.
Labour could retain its commitment to stability while loosening internal control, empowering Cabinet ministers, Parliament, and local leaders. This would represent a shift from campaign mode to governing coalition, reducing the risk of future Number 10 shocks. It would, however, require a leader genuinely comfortable with shared authority.

Third, ideological reorientation.
Less likely in the short term but not impossible is a move towards a clearer ideological project – one that offers more than competence and repair. This would energise parts of the party and sharpen Labour’s political story, but it would also reopen electoral risks that Project Starmer was explicitly designed to close down.

The deeper problem

The immediate headline is McSweeney’s exit. The deeper issue is that Labour has not yet adapted fully from opposition to government. Project Starmer succeeded by narrowing the party’s offer and controlling its voice. Governing requires the opposite – expansion of talent, trust, and clarity of purpose.

Right now, the government struggles to explain to ordinary voters what it is actually doing. The five national missions exist on paper, but they have not yet been translated into a story that cuts through beyond Westminster. Voters do not experience missions. They experience wages, bills, public services, and whether life feels more or less secure than before.

Downing Street does not look unsettled because one adviser has gone. It looks unsettled because too much depended on him in the first place.

Starmer now faces a choice. He can treat this moment as an unfortunate aberration, or as a warning that the operating system built to win power is no longer sufficient to exercise it. If Project Starmer is to endure, it will need less command and control politics and more resilient political infrastructure – including a clearer, more human explanation of what this government is for.

Whether it evolves, fractures, or gives way to something new will shape not just Labour’s stability, but its identity in power for years to come.

(Image: Geograph Britain and Ireland_)

Christmas messages are meant to sit above day-to-day politics, but they rarely sit outside it. In tone, emphasis and what is left unsaid, they offer a useful indicator of how party leaders want to be seen at the close of the year and what mood they believe the country is in.

This year’s messages from the main party leaders, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal Democrat leader point to three distinct political positions as the UK heads into the New Year.

Sir Keir Starmer – reassurance, service, and national responsibility

The Prime Minister’s Christmas message is consciously traditional in tone. Sir Keir Starmer leans heavily on the language of family, community, and service, placing particular emphasis on NHS staff, emergency workers, volunteers, and the Armed Forces.

His focus on Christian values, goodwill and social responsibility reflects a desire to speak to the country as a whole rather than to any particular constituency. There is no policy detail, but there is a clear moral framing – that government’s role is to support those struggling with the cost of living, while individuals also look out for one another.

Politically, the message reinforces a leadership style built around public service. Starmer positions himself as a custodian of national life rather than a campaigner, signalling continuity and calm as the defining traits of his premiership. A tough position to communicate with significant difficulties in the polls.

Kemi Badenoch – reflection, faith, and personal resilience

Kemi Badenoch’s message is more personal in tone, rooted in family life, faith and reflection on the year gone by. She speaks candidly about parenthood, the speed of change, and the importance of remembering the Christian meaning of Christmas alongside its celebrations.

She also explicitly reflects on her first year as Leader of the Opposition, describing it as both challenging and rewarding. This combination of personal narrative and political reflection underlines where the Conservatives currently sit – rebuilding, regrouping, and seeking to re-establish a sense of purpose.

Rather than attacking the government, Badenoch focuses on gratitude, resilience and looking ahead. It is a message aimed as much at her own party as the country, signalling renewal and determination. As the Party regroups from their worst defeat, there is definite optimism in this Christmas message.

Sir Ed Davey – symbolism, solidarity, and shared values

Sir Ed Davey’s Christmas message takes a more distinctive approach, built around the symbolism of the Trafalgar Square Christmas tree and the criticism on social media. By recounting its origins as a gift from Norway after the Second World War, Davey connects Christmas to themes of international solidarity, freedom and standing together in difficult times.

The message aligns closely with Liberal Democrat positioning – outward looking, values driven and quietly internationalist. Davey explicitly links past sacrifice to present challenges, including support for Ukraine, while framing Christmas as a moment of generosity and hope.

It is a softer, reflective intervention, reinforcing the party’s role as a moral and civic voice – potentially one that may hold the keys to power in future years to come.

Notable absences – Greens and Reform

Two figures are notably absent so far. The Green Party leader’s Christmas message has not yet been released and is expected to be timed alongside The King’s Christmas Message, a choice that may be designed to maximise visibility but risks comparison…

Equally, Nigel Farage has not yet released a Christmas message for Reform. How does the party intend to frame itself during a season traditionally associated with unity and goodwill…

Final thought – three parties, three states of mind

Taken together, these messages offer a revealing snapshot of British politics as the year closes.

Labour speaks from government, prioritising reassurance, stability, and national service. The Conservatives speak from opposition, focused on rebuilding confidence, identity, and momentum. The Liberal Democrats continue to position themselves as the conscience of the political landscape, emphasising values and internationalism.

In their ‘subtle’ way, each leader uses Christmas to reinforce how they want to be perceived in the year ahead – as a steady hand, a renewed challenger, or a principled voice.

As Britain enters the New Year, and elections on the horizon across the four nations, all parties will take this time to rest, reflect, and recuperate – expect some interesting ‘debate’ over Christmas dinners across the country…

Merry Christmas and see you in the New Year!

The precision airstrikes, which the Royal Thai Air Force (RTAF) described as a necessary preemptive move to “cripple” Cambodia’s offensive capabilities, mark the fiercest direct combat between the historic rivals since the bloody temple standoffs of 2011 and the flash-conflicts of July 2025. The renewed violence has already resulted in confirmed fatalities, the mobilisation of heavy armor, and the chaotic displacement of nearly half a million civilians, raising fears that a localised border skirmish is spiraling into a full-scale regional war.

The Spark: A Weekend of Violence

While tensions have simmered for weeks, the situation deteriorated rapidly over the weekend. The catalyst appears to have been a chaotic firefight late Sunday night in the dense jungles of the Dangrek Mountains.

Thai authorities reported that a patrol unit near the disputed Preah Vihear temple complex was ambushed by heavy mortar fire and drone-dropped munitions, killing one Thai ranger instantly and critically injuring others. Bangkok claims this was the final straw following a month of “provocations,” including the maiming of a Thai soldier by a freshly laid landmine in November; an incident that had already led Thailand to suspend de-escalation protocols.

By Monday morning, the conflict had transformed from border skirmishes to air superiority operations.

“Cripple Their Capability”: The Thai Offensive

In a televised address that stunned regional observers, the Thai military command confirmed the deployment of F-16 Fighting Falcons to strike logistics hubs and artillery batteries inside Cambodia.

“We are no longer firing warning shots,” stated General Chaipruak Doungprapat, the Thai army chief of staff, in a briefing from the 2nd Army Area Command. “The objective of the army is to cripple Cambodia’s military capability for a long time to come. We are acting for the safety of our children and grandchildren, ensuring that the threat from across the border is neutralised.”

Bangkok asserts the airstrikes were defensive, targeting drone launch sites and ammunition depots that Thai intelligence claims were being prepared for a cross-border offensive. The Thai Army also released grainy aerial footage purported to show Cambodian BM-21 truck-mounted rocket systems moving into firing positions aimed at Thai civilian population centres in Sisaket province.

Cambodia: “Inhumane Aggression”

In Phnom Penh, the mood is one of shock and defiance. The Cambodian government has vehemently denied instigating the Sunday clash, portraying the airstrikes as a disproportionate and “inhumane” act of bullying by a wealthier, better-armed neighbour.

Image: Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet and his wife Pich Chanmony in South Korea – Republic of Korea / Jeon Han

“Thailand is fabricating pretexts for an invasion,” read a furious statement from the Cambodian Defence Ministry. “Our forces have maintained strict discipline. We came under sustained bombardment from air and ground but exercised maximum restraint.”

However, that restraint may be fraying. Hun Sen, the country’s influential former leader and father of current Prime Minister Hun Manet, took to Facebook to rally national sentiment. While he publicly urged patience, his language hinted at a looming counter-strike.

“All frontline forces must remain patient because the aggressors have been firing all kinds of weapons,” Hun Sen wrote. “But they are trying to bait us. We must be smart, but we must be ready. They have crossed a line.”

Observers note that while Cambodia lacks Thailand’s air power, its artillery capabilities and seasoned ground forces make a prolonged ground war a deadly prospect for both sides.

“There Will Be No Talks”: Diplomacy Deadlocked

Diplomatic avenues appear to have completely collapsed. Thai Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul, known for his populist rhetoric, adopted an uncompromising hardline stance on Monday, rejecting calls for an immediate summit.

Image: Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul signs the Kuala Lumpur Accord alongside President Trump – The White House / Daniel Torok

“There will be no talks. If the fighting is to end, they must do what Thailand has set,” Anutin told reporters outside Government House, emphasising that his administration would prioritise territorial integrity over diplomacy. “We gave peace a chance. They used it to reload.”

This refusal effectively nullifies the “Trump Accord,” a diplomatic victory touted by the US President earlier this year. The collapse of the deal is a significant blow to US prestige in the region, leaving a vacuum that regional powers are struggling to fill.

Humanitarian Emergency

Official tolls confirm one Thai soldier and four Cambodian civilians killed in the initial salvos. However, unverified reports from border villages suggest higher civilian casualties on the Cambodian side due to the airstrikes.

Hospitals in Thailand’s Ubon Ratchathani province are treating 18 wounded soldiers, while Cambodian medical units report at least nine civilian injuries, including children.

Thailand has evacuated approximately 438,000 civilians across five border provinces, turning schools and temples into makeshift shelters.

Regional Shockwaves

The escalation has drawn immediate concern from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, who served as a key co-broker of the original ceasefire, issued an urgent plea for de-escalation.

IMAGE: President Donald Trump speaks with Malaysian Prime Minister Seri Anwar Ibrahim – The White House / Daniel Torok

“The renewed fighting risks unraveling the careful work that has gone into stabilising relations,” Anwar wrote on X (formerly Twitter), warning that a prolonged conflict could destabilise the entire Mekong sub-region.

As night falls over the border, artillery duels continue to be reported near the Preah Vihear temple. With the US administration yet to issue a formal response to the collapse of its deal, and Bangkok refusing to answer the phone, the window to prevent a full-scale war is closing fast. The breakout of the conflict marks a major to President’s campaign to establish peace across the world, and could raise questions about his deals in Gaza and Ukraine, as to whether they are short-term answers incapable of solving longer-term issues.

Featured Image via The White House – Daniel Torok

Henry Snowdon

Polling Correspondent, Politics UK

Labour is now projected to win just 101 seats – and the data shows their vote collapsing in three completely different directions at once. Read Politics UK’s full polling analysis.

Voting Intention Seat Projection

Since the May local elections, successive polls have told a similar story. Reform is on course to win the most seats and is close to an outright majority. This poll is no exception, projecting 323 seats for Reform. More striking, though, is Labour’s steady slide. The forecast puts Labour at record lows – 18.5 per cent of the vote and 101 seats. To explore how this erosion is occurring, this article examines three constituencies that show Labour losing support on multiple fronts.

Leeds Central and Headingley

2024 Result Current Projection

The Green Party has surged in the polls since Zack Polanski became leader around two months ago, reaching a record 13.8 per cent in my current forecast. Leeds Central and Headingley exemplifies the kind of seat the Greens could capture at the next General Election. They already have a local base – they took 23.5 per cent at the General Election and won a key city council seat (Headingley and Hyde Park) in the 2024 municipal elections – and the demographics are favourable. Recent polling shows the Greens leading among 18–24-year-olds, and Leeds Central and Headingley has the youngest electorate in the country, with 41 per cent in that age group.

Reform won only 7.6 per cent here in 2024, so fears about splitting the vote and “letting Reform in” are far less likely to deter disillusioned progressives from voting Green. In short, young, highly educated urban cores, like Leeds Central and Headingley, are where the Green upswing – and Labour’s votes decline – and are most likely to produce tangible gains.

Seats With Similar Demographic Profiles to Watch Out For

Manchester Gorton, (Greens projected to win with 31.9 per cent of the vote)

Sheffield Central (Greens projected to win with 36.6 per cent of the vote)

Liverpool Riverside (Greens projected to come second with 26.2 per cent of the vote)

Doncaster North

2024 Result Current Projection

Reform is set to increase its support in almost every constituency as its vote share more than doubles. However, the rise will not be even, and Doncaster North is a useful case study of where a very large swing is likely – and why. First, the surge there is not merely projected – it has already begun. In the May council elections, Reform topped the poll in every ward within the constituency.

Nationally, those local elections and subsequent polling point to a clear pattern: Reform is over-performing in areas that are whiter, are more economically deprived, and have lower levels of qualification. Doncaster North fits that profile – it is the 75th most deprived constituency in England, is 97 per cent white, and has the 33rd lowest qualification attainment in Great Britain – making it a textbook example of Reform’s emerging heartland.

There is also symbolism in a swing of this magnitude. The seat is held by one of Labour’s most high-profile MPs, former leader Ed Miliband. His potential defeat would speak to Labour’s fraying relationship with parts of its traditional base, as soft-left progressive politics has, for many working-class voters, lost its appeal. It would also mark a genuine sea change. Doncaster North has only ever elected Labour MPs – it even resisted the Conservative surge in 2019. A heavy loss here would suggest Labour is in deep trouble.

Seats With Similar Demographic Polling Profiles to Watch Out For

Kingston upon Hull East (Reform projected to win with 49.3 per cent of the vote) 

Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Reform projected to win with 47.9 per cent of the vote)

Barnsley South (Reform projected to win with 52.5 per cent of the vote)

Similar Seats 

Hamilton and Clyde Valley – Snp 27.1% (current projection) 27.4% (2024 election)

2024 Result Current Projection

The Scottish National Party (SNP) is currently projected to win 45 seats, up from just 9 at last year’s General Election. That might suggest a major resurgence; however, the data says otherwise. The SNP is polling at 31.7 per cent – only 1.7 percentage points higher than at the General Election – and its support has mostly hovered within the margin of error over the past year. The real driver of change is Labour’s national collapse. Labour is projected at 15.3 per cent – down from 35.3 per cent. While a slice of that vote has moved to the SNP, a larger share has shifted to Reform.

A late-September Norstat poll found that 56 per cent of Scottish Labour voters intending to switch now plan to back Reform, while only 16 per cent are moving to the SNP. As a result – and after attracting an additional 4 to 8 per cent of 2024 SNP voters – Reform is polling at 21.1 per cent across Scotland and is competitive in many seats. Even so, because the SNP retains a poll lead and a relatively even spread of support, it is – so far – the main beneficiary of Labour’s collapse.

Hamilton and Clyde Valley best illustrates this pattern. It is the SNP’s lowest-share projected gain, with the party slipping by 0.3 percentage points yet still taking the seat due to Labour’s vote falling from 49.9 per cent to 26.7 per cent. Reform is also strong here, at a projected 22.5 per cent – putting the seat firmly in play. Variations of this story appear across constituencies Labour won in 2024 – a microcosm of Scotland’s current political landscape.

Seats With Similar Demographic Profiles to Watch Out For:

Ayr, Carrick, and Cumnock (SNP projected to win with 27.7 per cent of the vote)

Bathgate and Linlithgow (SNP projected to win with 28.8 per cent of the vote)

Central Ayrshire (SNP projected to win with 28.9 per cent of the vote)

Conclusion 

Labour is currently facing political losses in many divergent directions. In seats like Doncaster North, where their coalition relied on the white working class, they are losing out to Reform. In seats like Leeds Central and Headingley, where their coalition relied on young progressives, they are losing out to the Greens. And in Scotland, where their coalition relied on anti-SNP, and anti-Tory tactical voting, they are losing out to the SNP. The collapse of the Labour coalition has been quick and dramatic. As they are currently projected to win 101 seats, one begins to wonder how much lower they can go. 

This article was published in the latest edition of Chamber UK’s journal. To buy your copy or download an online version, visit: www.chamberuk.com/publications.

The Prime Minister arrived in Liverpool facing pressure to define his premiership. Labour may be in government, but a clear sense of what drives this Prime Minister – beyond competence and stability – has often eluded supporters and critics alike. His conference speech was therefore a test of clarity and conviction, and by most accounts it was one he passed with skill.

The delivery was measured but also punchier than his earlier set pieces. There were moments of genuine passion when he spoke about unity, fairness and the importance of growth that reaches all communities. He framed the choice facing the country in stark terms:

“Britain stands at a fork in the road. We can choose decency. Or we can choose division. Renewal or decline.”

This was not just a rhetoric, it was the moral heart of the speech. An attempt to define his government in contrast to populism and pessimism.

Growth as renewal

The centrepiece of Starmer’s address was economic renewal. He made the case that growth is not an abstract statistic but something that touches the daily lives of citizens – whether a secure payslip, the ability to buy small comforts, or the reassurance that bills can be paid.

“Growth is the pound in your pocket…the peace of mind that comes from economic security.”

The argument was simple but significant. The Labour Party is positioning itself not as a movement promising radical redistribution, but as a government that will create the conditions for steady prosperity across the country. Starmer rejected the idea that growth can only come from the financial sector or London, speaking instead of growth “from the grassroots.” This reflects a shift away from Labour’s past reliance on fiscal transfers, and towards a belief in spreading opportunity through regional development, skills, and investment.

It was also a coded reminder that there will be no unfunded giveaways. The emphasis on fiscal discipline was deliberate: tough decisions are coming, and Starmer wanted members to hear this from him directly.

Hard choices ahead

One of the most notable aspects of the speech was his candour about the pain of governing. Starmer admitted that the road to renewal will involve unpopular and sometimes uncomfortable decisions. This was a subtle warning to those in the party who might push for expansive spending commitments or sweeping reforms without clear funding.

He cast himself as a leader prepared to make choices “firm and fair,” insisting that governing is not about easy promises but about responsibility.

“The most important aspect of national renewal is how you grow an economy, not just how much, but who and where benefits.”

It was a carefully pitched message: realistic enough to prepare the party for constraint, yet optimistic enough to offer the promise of long-term progress.

Borders and sovereignty

The most surprising section came on immigration and sovereignty. Starmer acknowledged that the system requires reform and that Britain may need to question some of the assumptions and legal constraints of past decades. For many in the hall this was uncomfortable territory, yet it demonstrated his determination not to cede the issue to Reform UK or the Conservatives.

It was also a political calculation. With Reform UK polling stubbornly high, Starmer clearly wanted to blunt their appeal by showing Labour as pragmatic and tough on border control, while still upholding fairness and respect for those who contribute to the country.

A moral framing

What lifted the speech beyond policy detail was its moral framing. Starmer returned repeatedly to the idea that politics is about values: decency, fairness, and the belief that the country can come together. This was his answer to cynicism about whether Labour has a story to tell.

“No matter how many people tell me it cannot be done, I believe Britain can come together.”

This line resonated with delegates because it captured the ambition of government not just to manage decline but to renew national life. The invocation of the post-war Labour government was deliberate, positioning today’s challenges in the context of historic responsibility.

Did it answer the question?

For those in the hall, the speech largely succeeded. Delegates responded warmly, members heard more detail than in previous addresses, and the Prime Minister’s values came through more clearly. Yet there remains a lingering question. Are we truly more aware of what this Prime Minister stands for than we were at the start of the conference?

The speech positioned himself as the champion of decency versus division, renewal versus decline. It offered important markers on growth, fiscal discipline, and immigration. But it left some ambiguity about the deeper vision of Labour in power. Is this a government of cautious stability, or of transformative ambition?

Final thought: a strong step, but unfinished business

Sir Keir Starmer delivered a strong and well-judged conference speech. It reassured his party, provided voters with a sense of direction, and positioned Labour against the divisive politics of Reform UK. It showed him as a leader with values rooted in decency and fairness, and a pragmatist prepared to take tough decisions.

Yet it also highlighted the challenge that will continue to confront him. Values alone will not carry a government. Policy choices, delivery on the ground and a clear vision of the future will determine whether Labour’s promise of renewal can be sustained.

This speech was a significant step forward, but the task of defining Starmer’s premiership is far from complete.

We have already seen a wide range of mishaps from Starmer that a politically astute Prime Minister would not have otherwise made; the unbalanced power dynamic between him and his backbenchers, his constant personnel issues, and a domestic agenda with no structure behind it whatsoever – all within just over a year of his time in Downing Street.

Now, we have since learned that the government proceeded with the appointment of Peter Mandelson, despite there being ongoing security concerns. This shows a concerning lack of judgement within Downing Street that must be addressed.

The Prime Minister has developed a tendency to publicly back those in his government despite not having complete confidence in them – he did so at the despatch box regarding dismissed Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, and has done so again with Peter Mandelson.

Image: Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner, Former Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and Deputy Prime Minister – Simon Dawson / No 10 Downing Street

The difference between the two events is stark. Although she was in breach of the ministerial code, Starmer was not involved in Rayner’s tax affairs. Even if you disagree over how he handled the situation, that is a fact. The scandal surrounding Mandelson, however, is damning. It shows a clear lack of judgement on the part of the Prime Minister. He knew that there was at least some degree of concern about the appointment but proceeded with it anyway.

If the Prime Minister was aware of any compromising details the White House may have on Mandelson, this makes the appointment even more troubling. It is a major concern that the very person meant to deal with the Trump administration possesses documents or details that may influence his actions, potentially hindering diplomatic ties between London and Washington.

The Prime Minister then went to the Commons and gave Mandelson his support, just to sack him the next morning. This is a Prime Minister who vowed for a new age of accountability in politics, instead he has opted for disingenuous politics.

Attention will now turn to the second state visit of President Trump, who himself has been the subject of strong scrutiny over his personal relationship with Epstein – the same issues implicated in Mandelson’s downfall.

This is significant because by sacking Mandelson, Starmer has simultaneously legitimised any pressure Trump may face at home over the same book, despite the White House relentlessly denying its legitimacy. What this does to the reception Starmer gets from Trump, we will have to see.

The most revealing thing about the course of the last two weeks is that Starmer has quickly lost his authority and the confidence of those around him. Over the course of just over a year we have seen the dismissal of Sue Gray as his Chief of Staff, a homelessness minister who evicted her tenants, a housing minister and Deputy Prime Minister who avoided stamp duty. There has also been a backbench rebellion that saw the whip withdrawn from numerous MPs, the Prime Minister caught in a freebie controversy, a major cabinet reshuffle which has been compared to moving deck chairs on the Titanic, and now the sacking of a high-profile US ambassador.

To think that Starmer has four years left in office is staggering, considering the number of polarising events that have already shaken his premiership. To think that he can go on for another four years is another question. Every time that Starmer has looked to “relaunch” his government he is quickly beset by serious threats to his authority. It is not sustainable for a Prime Minister to continue with such threats present, especially with the impending tax raiding budget that is in the pipeline for late November.

If Starmer is to get a grip over his agenda and restore his authority, he must do what many critics have been urging for months -drop the lawyer-minded- approach and start playing politics.

As we enter party conference season, the pressure must be kept on Starmer and Downing Street to establish what they knew about Mandelson and when.

Featured Image via Simon Dawson / 10 Downing Street

He follows in the footsteps of hundreds of Conservative councillors, and, more recently, a sprinkling of former Parliamentarians. But Berry’s defection has raised more eyebrows than those who have gone before him.

Firstly, Sir Jake, at least in politico circles, carries more name recognition than any defector to date. Once a Remainer, once a Net Zero devotee, once (briefly) a Party Chairman – if Berry can come to the decision that Reform can get his political career back on track then reason indicates that almost the entire Tory party could follow him.

Writing in The Sun, Berry outlined his reasons – migration, taxes, and the ballooning benefits bill.

He claimed: “[T]he truth is, the Conservatives have lost their way. They’ve abandoned their principles. They’ve abandoned the British people.”

The defection was the second to hit the Tories last week, and the fourth in a fortnight.

Sir David Jones, a former Welsh Secretary, stated on Monday last week that he had joined Reform earlier this year, and former MPs Ross Thomson and Anne Marie Morris also recently left the Conservatives for Nigel Farage’s party.

In his article, Berry slammed Labour as well as his former party, saying: “Old Westminster politics has failed.”

Rising Through The Ranks

Berry started his political career in 2010 when he was elected to represent Rossendale and Darwen – a constituency in Lancashire. He won in 2010 with 41 per cent of the vote and continued to represent this constituency until 2024, when he was defeated by a Labour candidate.

It wasn’t long after entering Parliament that Jake Berry obtained his first Government role. He served as Parliamentary Private Secretary for Grant Schapps during his time at the Housing and Local Government Ministry and in 2013 was appointed to advise David Cameron on housing, regional growth and local government.

Under Theresa May, Berry ascended to a succession of senior positions. He served as Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Northern Powerhouse and Local Growth following the 2017 election, and his rise continued when Boris Johnson promoted him to Minister of State and appointed him to the Privy Council.

This series of promotions was curbed when he refused a move to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and instead resigned from government during the February 2020 cabinet reshuffle.

His return to government came in 2022 with Liz Truss’s election, when he joined the cabinet as Chairman of the Conservative Party. This tenure only lasted a mere 49 days, until the demise of the Truss premiership. Following those heights, Berry remained a backbencher.

Berry was a firm ally of Liz Truss and Boris Johnson throughout his career. Like Truss, he opposed Brexit during the referendum campaign and like Truss he subsequently underwent a Damascene Brexiteer conversion. In 2018 he claimed he “would now vote for Brexit”.

What Does This Mean for Reform?

A YouGov MRP poll recently indicated that Reform would be the largest party in Parliament had a general election taken place last month. According to the poll, Reform would have won in 271 seats. Labour would have won 179, and the Conservatives 46.

With Reform leading in many polls, winning a landslide in May’s local elections and attracting an ever-growing number of Tory defectors – evidence is mounting that they, not the Conservatives, are the main threat to Labour’s election chances.

How About The Conservatives?

Responding to Berry’s switch to Reform, Kemi Badenoch has accused defectors of behaving “like they do in banana republics”.

Nigel Farage has claimed that more defections are yet to come. Badenoch said those thinking of defecting were welcome to leave: “All of the people who are not interested in coming up with a proper policy plan and just want to jump ship are welcome to do so, because when the time comes at the next general election, the public are going to be looking for a serious, credible alternative.”

The difficulty for Badenoch and her party is remaining a “serious, credible alternative” when high-profile figures start to defect to Reform, and attempt to discredit their former party in the process. Badenoch must find an answer to the question – if people in her own party think Reform are the best means of removing this Labour Government, why should the public not think the same?

Restrictions were placed on new onshore developments in 2015. They meant that any local opposition to new developments would effectively veto planning permission, or cause major bottlenecks in the proposal, effectively acting as a ban on onshore wind projects until Labour removed these restrictions shortly after the General Election in 2024.

Now, the first ever onshore wind strategy, to be published today (4 July), will set out 40 actions to “get onshore wind building again across the UK”.

These action points will look to improve existing wind farms, as well as opening the door for future developments.

Old turbines that are not operational but safe will be repowered to keep up the current supply of clean energy, while planners and developers will be given guidance and tools to speed up development planning and streamline future decision making.

The changes will reinstate onshore wind into the infrastructure projects regime on the same footing as offshore wind and nuclear projects, streamlining the planning and consent process to ensure projects get built as quickly as possible.

The government has committed to doubling onshore wind capacity and quadrupling offshore wind by 2030. These plans will make it easier and faster for developers to meet this target.

Labour estimates that the development of new onshore wind farms will support 45,000 jobs throughout the supply chain by 2030. Energy Minister Michael Shanks said: “Rolling out more onshore wind is a no-brainer – it’s one of our cheapest technologies, quick to build, supports thousands of skilled jobs and can provide clean energy directly to the communities hosting it.  

“After years of decline, we’re giving industry the tools to get building again, backing industrial renewal and secure, clean, homegrown energy”

Communities are set to benefit too with the voluntary community benefits scheme being updated to provide communities in England with £5,000 per megawatt per year for community initiatives like football pitches or libraries, or bill discount schemes for households.  

The onshore wind plan comes after the announcement of the 10-year Clean Energy Industries sector plan announced as part of the government’s Industrial Strategy.

The sector plan saw announcements like a £700 billion increase in funding for Great British Energy, increasing funding for clean energy supply chains to £1.7 billion, as well as a £1 billion Clean Energy Supply Chain Fund that will be used to support businesses in the chain to scale, producing a more stable environment for development and boosting investor confidence.

Shadow Energy Secretary Claire Coutinho MP said: “Ed Miliband’s obsession with climate targets means he’s making our energy unreliable and expensive. No country in the world relies just on the wind and the sun. He is shutting down the North Sea, concreting our gas wells and he’s downgraded our plans for nuclear. All this means is that families’ energy bills are going to go through the roof, and we’ll just end up importing more from coal-powered China.

“The US security services have already warned us that Chinese wind turbines could pose serious risks to our national security, but he won’t do a China audit. Ed wants to hit Net Zero targets no matter the cost to the British public.”

Vattenfall’s Head of UK Regulatory Affairs and member of the Onshore Wind Taskforce, Lisa Christie, said: “This Government’s renewed focus on unlocking the potential of onshore wind is essential for the UK’s energy security, reducing bills, and economic growth.”

While RenewableUK’s Head of Onshore Wind Delivery, James Robottom, said: “Overturning the unpopular onshore wind ban, which deprived us of one of the quickest and cheapest technologies to build for a decade, was just the start.

“The hard work to make the most of this great opportunity to grow our economy and strengthen the UK’s energy security is now in full swing.”

Featured image via Kathphotos / Shutterstock.