
The Trump administration is descending into authoritarianism
Entering the magnificent great hall of the US Department of Justice, Donald Trump stopped for a moment to admire his portrait then took to a specially constructed stage where two art deco statues, depicting the 'Spirit of Justice' and 'Majesty of Justice', had been carefully concealed behind a blue velvet curtain.
The president, who since last year is also a convicted criminal, proceeded to air grievances, utter a profanity and accuse the news media of doing 'totally illegal' things, without offering evidence. 'I just hope you can all watch for it,' he told justice department employees, 'but it's totally illegal.'
Trump's breach of the justice department's traditional independence last week was neither shocking nor surprising. His speech quickly faded from the fast and furious news cycle. But future historians may regard it as a milestone on a road leading the world's oldest continuous democracy to a once unthinkable destination.
Eviscerating the federal government and subjugating Congress; defying court orders and delegitimising judges; deporting immigrants and arresting protesters without due process; chilling free speech at universities and cultural institutions; cowing news outlets with divide-and-rule. Add a rightwing media ecosystem manufacturing consent and obeyance in advance, along with a weak and divided opposition offering feeble resistance. Join all the dots, critics say, and America is sleepwalking into authoritarianism.
'These are flashing red lights here,' Tara Setmayer, a former Republican communications director turned Trump critic. 'We are approaching Defcon 1 for our democracy and a lot of people in the media and the opposition leadership don't seem to be communicating that to the American people. That is the biggest danger of the moment we're in now: the normalisation of it.'
Much was said and written by journalists and Democrats during last year's election campaign arguing that Trump, who instigated a coup against the US government on January 6, 2021, could endanger America's 240-year experiment with democracy if he returned to power. In a TV interview he had promised to be 'dictator' but only on 'day one'. Sixty days in, the only question is whether the warnings went far enough.
The 45th and 47th president has wasted no time in launching a concerted effort to consolidate executive power, undermine checks and balances and challenge established legal and institutional norms. And he is making no secret of his strongman ambitions.
Trump, 78, has declared 'We are the federal law' and posted a social media image of himself wearing a crown with the words 'Long live the king'. He also channeled Napoleon with the words: 'He who saves his country does not violate any law.' And JD Vance has stated that 'judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power'.
Trump quickly pardoned those who attacked the US Capitol on January 6, placed loyalists in key positions within the FBI and military and purged the justice department, which also suffered resignations in response to the dismissal of corruption charges against New York mayor Eric Adams after his cooperation on hardline immigration measures.
The president now has the courts in his sights. Last weekend the White House defied a judge's verbal order blocking it from invoking the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 law meant only to be used in wartime, to justify the deportation of 250 Venezuelan alleged gang members to El Salvador, where they will be held in a 40,000-person megaprison.
Trump accused James Boasberg, the chief district judge in Washington who made the ruling, of being 'crooked', said he should be 'impeached' and labelled him a 'radical left lunatic of a judge'. The outburst prompted John Roberts, the chief justice of the supreme court, to deliver a rare rebuke of the president, emphasing that 'impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision'.
In an interview on the conservative Fox News network, Trump denied defying a court order and said he would not do so in future. But he added ominously: 'We have very bad judges and these are judges that shouldn't be allowed. I think at a certain point, you have to start looking at what do you do when you have a rogue judge?'
David Frum, a former speechwriter for President George W Bush, posted on the X social media platform: 'Almost every major Trump action is intentionally illegal. Trump is gambling that the US democratic system is too broken to stop him. He assumes, to borrow a phrase: 'All we've got to do is kick the door in and the whole edifice will come crumbling down.' Testing hour is here.'
The White House is yet to release the names of the deported Venezuelans or proof that they were indeed criminal gang members. In another recent incident, it sent 40 undocumented immigrants to the notorious detention facility at the Guantánamo Bay naval base, only for a judge to intervene and force their return to the mainland.
Some commentators suggest that the Trump administration is exploiting the power of sadistic spectacle. They say it is priming the public for future crackdowns and testing its level of tolerance for a moment when, for example, it might invoke the Insurrection Act to target anti-Trump protesters.
Steve Schmidt, a political strategist and former campaign operative for George W Bush and John McCain, said: 'Donald Trump is producing a Washington television show from the Oval Office that's authoritarian in nature. You go on TikTok and see the deportations scored to songs and videos released by the administration. It's a theatre of the absurd. It's a theatre of malice. All of it is desensitising people to the use of authority and power.'
Violations of civil liberties are piling up on an almost daily basis. They include incidents that, if they had happened anywhere else in the world before 2025, the US would have been among the first to condemn them.
Jasmine Mooney, a Canadian entrepreneur and actor in the American Pie movie franchise, was detained for almost two weeks in 'inhumane' conditions by US border authorities over an incomplete visa. She wrote in the Guardian: 'I was taken to a tiny, freezing cement cell with bright fluorescent lights and a toilet. There were five other women lying on their mats with the aluminum sheets wrapped over them, looking like dead bodies. The guard locked the door behind me.'
Fabian Schmidt, a German national who is a permanent US resident, was detained and, his mother said, 'violently interrogated', stripped naked and put in a cold shower by US border officials. A French scientist was denied entry to the US after immigration officers at an airport searched his phone and found messages in which he had expressed criticism of the Trump administration, according to the French government.
Rasha Alawieh, a kidney transplant specialist who previously worked and lived in Rhode Island, was deported despite having a US visa. Badar Khan Suri, a postdoctoral scholar at Georgetown University and citizen of India married to a Palestinian, was detained by immigration agents who told him his visa had been revoked.
Columbia University student activist Mahmoud Khalil, a legal US resident with no criminal record, was detained over his participation in pro-Palestinian demonstrations and is fighting deportation efforts in federal court. Chris Murphy, a Democratic senator, reacted on social media: 'In dictatorships, they call this practice 'being disappeared'. No charges, no claims of criminal behaviour. The White House doesn't claim he did anything criminal. He's in jail because of his political speech.'
Another trigger for alarm is Trump's close relationship with tech oligarchs, many of whom donated to and attended his inauguration. Tesla and SpaceX head Elon Musk's department of government efficiency (Doge) has been taking a chainsaw to the federal bureaucracy, firing thousands of workers in indiscriminate ways that have been challenged in court.
Musk's X regularly parrots pro-Trump propaganda. Jeff Bezos, owner of Amazon and the Washington Post, recently ordered that the newspaper narrow the topics covered by its opinion section to personal liberties and the free market. Several star reporters and columnists have quit in recent months.
Trump has escalated attacks on media outlets whose coverage he dislikes, including barring them from workspaces and events. He has filed lawsuits against media outlets and falsely claimed the flagship series 60 Minutes admitted guilt regarding a lawsuit.
His appointee to head the Federal Communications Commission is investigating PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) and NPR(National Public Radio). Last weekend the Trump administration put almost the entire staff of Voice of America – which began broadcasting in 1942 to combat Nazi propaganda – on leave and ended grants to Radio Free Asia and other media with similar news programming.
Trump's moves in the foreign policy arena hold up a mirror to his domestic vision. He has rattled longtime allies in Europe over whether the US remains committed to Nato and he has sided with Russia in talks to end the war in Ukraine. He even called the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, a 'dictator' and berated him in the Oval Office.
Trump has long shown an affinity with autocrats such as Putin, Xi Jinping of China and Kim Jong-un of North Korea and his actions have compared to Viktor Orbán's consolidation of power in Hungary, which includes remaking the judiciary, gaming elections and cracking down on media and civic organisations.
At the Center for American Progress thinktank in Washington this week, JB Pritzker, the Democratic governor of Illinois, told the Guardian: 'If you haven't already read about Orban in Hungary, go read about what he did steadily, not that slowly, to put the noose around that country. Donald Trump admires Orban and I believe he and his team have learned from that and are replicating that.'
What some find most frightening of all is the relative lack of resistance so far. Trump's approval rating equals his best ever mark as president at 47%, according to a recent NBC News poll, although a majority – 51% - disapproves of his performance. Some 55% of voters approve of his handling of border security and immigration, while 43% disapprove.
Setmayer, who now leads the Seneca Project, a women-led super political action committee, commented: 'The fact that Donald Trump's approval rating is still in the mid-40s should scare the hell out of every American who understands the value of our constitutional republic, the freedoms that we enjoy and the rule of law because what he is doing is categorically against everything this country was founded on.'
This is reflected in Congress where the Republican party is more loyal to and unquestioning of Trump than ever. Few members have dared to speak out against the president's support for Putin, haphazard tariff policy or bullying of neighbour Canada. They know that dissent would likely result in public humiliation on social media and a primary election challenge funded by Musk.
Democrats, for their part, are still struggling to meet the moment as swelling protests across the country hunger for leadership. Last week Chuck Schumer, the minority leader in the Senate, reversed his position by voting to pass a Republican budget plan that will make cuts to housing, transportation and education while also empowering Trump and Musk to slash more programmes.
Faced with the prospect of a government shutdown, Schumer argued that he was choosing the lesser of two evils but ignited a furious backlash from Democrats in the House of Representatives and grassroots activists. NBC's poll found that just 27% of voters say they have positive views of the party, its lowest rating since the question was first asked in 1990.
Meagan Hatcher-Mays, a senior adviser for United for Democracy, a coalition of 140 organisations aimed at reforming the courts, said Democrats were wrongfooted by Trump's narrow victory in the national popular vote last year.
'They took the wrong lesson from the outcome of that election and they think Donald Trump is a lot more popular than he actually is,' she said. 'Their baseline is already to be scared but that made them more scared to push back or resist against some of Donald Trump's worst impulses. What you have now is they're more comfortable caving and that's what they have been doing.
'They have not been able to mount a durable opposition to Donald Trump or to congressional Republicans. You can't just be not Donald Trump. You have to be for something and you have to paint a vision for what you want for the American people. Instead what they've decided to do is just say nothing and hope for the best and that is not going to win them any seats in 2026.'
The courts are potentially the last line of defence. Federal judges have blocked dozens of Trump's initiatives, including attempts to eliminate agencies, end birthright citizenship and freeze federal funding. This week a judge found that Doge likely violated the constitution 'in multiple ways' with its dismantling of development agency USAID.
Jamie Raskin, a Democratic congressman from Maryland, noted that Democrats and their allies have filed more than 125 cases against various attacks on the rule of law and obtained more than 40 temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions.
'We're in the fight of our lives,' he told the Guardian. 'This is not a two week, two month or even two year fight that we're in. This is going to take us many years to defeat the forces of authoritarian reaction and the Democrats are rising to the occasion.
'If you look at he way democratic societies responded to fascism a century ago, it just takes time for people to realign and refocus and mobilise a concerted and unified response. Are we there yet? No. But are we going to be in a place where we can stand together and defeat authoritarianism in our country? Yes, we are going to get there.'
Norm Eisen, a lawyer and founder of State Democracy Defenders Action, has brought successful cases that stopped Trump targeting thousands of FBI employees and blocked Musk's access to sensitive data at the treasury department. He said: 'Donald Trump is definitely pushing towards authoritarianism. He promised to be a dictator on day one and he hasn't stopped. That's the bad news.
'The good news is that he has met vigorous pushback from litigants like myself and many others and from courts at every level. So far, his most outrageous illegal conduct has been countered.'
If the Trump administration ignores such orders, America could face a full-blown constitutional crisis. But Eisen retains measured optimism. 'It's a mistake to count us out. We have so surprised ourselves and the world over and over again in our history and there is cause for hope here when you see the furious legal pushback by lawyers.
'There is reason for hope but nobody knows. Will we go the way of Brazil, Poland, Czech Republic, where I was ambassador, all of which pushed out autocratic regimes in recent years? Or will we go the way of Hungary and Turkey, which failed to oust autocrats? It remains to be seen but I, at least, am hopeful.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mirror
43 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
LA on lockdown as Donald Trump calls protesters 'animals' in fresh unhinged rant
Donald Trump and California Governor Gavin Newsom have again entered a slanging match as protests continued in Los Angeles, part of which is now subject to a no-go zone Part of Los Angeles has been put into lockdown following anarchic riots over the past week, sparked as a result of Donald Trump's gung-ho immigration policy. The US President branded protesters "animals" and "a foreign enemy" before Los Angeles mayor Karen Bass caved in and declared a local emergency. Demonstrators set fire to cars, looted buildings and attacked officers with rocks, fireworks and cement bricks in harrowing scenes of destruction in recent days. It means Downtown, Los Angeles, will be a no-go zone until 6am Wednesday (2pm UK time). The same curfew is likely to be repeated for several nights. Ms Bass warned: "If you do not live or work in Downtown LA avoid the area. Law enforcement will arrest individuals who break the curfew, and you will be prosecuted... Some of the imagery of the protests and the violence gives the appearance as though this is a city wide crisis and is not." Her move came after Mr Trump, in his most aggressive language yet regarding the protests, called demonstrators "a foreign enemy". Speaking to reporters in Fort Bragg, California, the Republican President said: "We will not allow an American city to be invaded and conquered by a foreign enemy. That's what they are." Mr Trump received plenty of cheers from the crowd at the event, which was supposed to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the US Army. READ MORE: Donald Trump brands Greta Thunberg a 'young, angry person' in blistering attack But California Governor Gavin Newsom hit back at the world leader. After the lockdown was imposed, effectively banning daytime protests in Downtown, Gov Newsom blamed the federal government for the ongoing crisis. He said: "Authoritarian regimes begin by targeting people who are least able to defend themselves, but they do not stop there. This is a president who in just over 140 days, has fired government watchdogs that could hold him accountable, accountable for corruption and fraud. He's declared a war, a war on culture, on history, on science, on knowledge itself. Databases, quite literally, are vanishing." Gov Newsom claimed that "when Donald Trump sought blanket authority to commandeer the National Guard. He made that order apply to every state in this nation. "This is about all of us. This is about you. California may be first, but it clearly will not end here. Other states are next. Democracy is next. Democracy is under assault before our eyes, this moment we have feared has arrived... What Donald Trump wants most is your fealty, your silence, to be complicit in this moment. Do not give in to him." Mr Trump gave orders to send 700 Marines and 4,100 National Guard troops in to take over policing efforts and assist the Los Angeles Police Department amid the tensions. At least 23 businesses have been looted during the ongoing violence.


New Statesman
an hour ago
- New Statesman
Los Angeles, Donald Trump and the moronic inferno
Photo by David Swanson/Reuters Just as Vladimir Putin hungers to occupy Ukraine, it seems that Donald Trump hungers to occupy America. At time of writing, the president has ordered 4,000 members of the National Guard along with 700 US marines to California to put down protests there against the random arrest of (possibly) undocumented immigrants. Cars ablaze, charging phalanxes of soldiers, protesters' bloody faces: Trump's actions seem likely to provoke the demonstrators to levels of violence not seen since the Black Lives Matter riots of 2020. Perhaps that is the intention. The effect is ominous. Trump's overruling of a state governor to deploy these troops is the first such presidential action since Lyndon Johnson sent federal soldiers into Alabama in 1965, and that was to protect civil rights protesters, not attack them. It appears no precedent, or lack of one, can constrain America's leader. Trump simply has nothing to lose from whatever he does. Not from the violence he is unleashing in California, and certainly not from his obsessively covered and commented-upon falling out with Elon Musk, Trump's adviser and patron until recently. Musk, the world's wealthiest man, runs no real risk, either. Worth nearly $400bn dollars, Musk might, if Trump cancels his federal contracts, lose some mere billions. In fact he lost far more after the value of his companies sank thanks to his alliance with Trump. This hasn't stopped the American media from milking their row for all the page views it is worth. The brouhaha is wearying. More consequential, especially in the light of Trump's actions in LA, is a lesser-noticed split between Trump and another former ally: Miles Taylor, the former homeland security official from Trump's first administration. In an anonymous 2018 op-ed in the New York Times, then in a book published anonymously, he questioned Trump's fitness to hold office (Taylor revealed his identity in 2020). In April, Trump publicly suggested that Taylor had committed treason, a crime punishable by death. Trump has directed the Justice Department to investigate Taylor, who, with his family, has been in hiding since 2020. Now the family are trying to raise money for a legal defence. No American president has ever had an American investigated for committing treason for merely criticising the government, let alone publicly slandered them as a traitor. The New York Times glancingly mentioned Trump's accusation of espionage against Taylor in just one article, which covered several subjects of the president's vindictive rage. Yet at one point, the paper had no fewer than ten stories about the spat between Trump and Musk at the top of its homepage. The usually more sober, though Trump-whispering, Wall Street Journal had five up top. Meanwhile Gaza and Ukraine burn, China and Russia gloat, Europeans move so far away from America that it will take another Columbus to rediscover the place, and Trump's wanton slaughter of American institutions and values rolls forward. The world's most powerful man breaking with the world's richest man is newsworthy. But the idea – as pundits have said, again and again – that in the light of the rift American politics will change profoundly is absurd. Trump's persecution of one of his critics as a traitor is what will change American politics profoundly. Musk, who is unpopular, lacks the stature to stand the political order on its head. His threat to form a third party is as toothless as it is standard for an embittered rival to make. For all his wealth, he could not even get a Trump-supported judge elected in Wisconsin in April. And rather than the two men emerging as losers from their quarrel, they both come out smelling like roses. Trump was glad to have the chainsaw-wielding Musk serve as his fall-guy for the unpopular gutting of vital American agencies. Musk was happy to have the opportunity to move bureaucrats who were attempting to regulate his businesses out of the way. The limited and short-lived repercussions of Musk's antagonism with Trump are nothing compared to the ongoing consequences of their collaboration. As for the much-touted break between Maga and tech, Trump recently signed a mammoth contract with Palantir, the data analysis and technology company co-founded by Peter Thiel. This is not to say that the Trump-Musk rift does not offer an illumination. At its heart, it is an encounter between two present-day American archetypes: Musk, a digitally formed persona who seems lacking in emotional intelligence; and Trump, an old-fashioned analogue figure who makes up for what he lacks in knowledge and intellect with his preternatural ability to grasp people and what they fundamentally want. Consider his actions in Los Angeles: a level of policing brutality that plays up to the 'law and order' fever dreams of parts of the American public. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe After all, it is Trump's emotional canniness that has allowed him for decades to play the media like a farmed salmon. As the all-consuming uproar over his break with Musk showed, his strongest talent is to create smoke and mirrors in order to obscure the reality of his actions. His sweet spot is to rivet attention. The media's sweet spot is also to rivet attention. This is what lends such a fatal momentum to every spectacle Trump creates. The more the media conscientiously portrays Trump's cruelty in LA, the more his followers thrill to his power. It is Greek tragedy: every motion of American freedom now has the effect of turning freedom in America in on itself. [See also: Trump's nuclear test] Related


New Statesman
an hour ago
- New Statesman
Laughing at the populist right is not a political strategy
Photo by ROBERTO SCHMIDT/AFP via Getty Images Across north London, in the citadels of the liberal elite, it has been hard to hear yourself think. The roars, whoops and whistles of merry laughter; the stamping of feet on floorboards; the wheezing, the rasping coughs and the slapping of thighs… yes, Donald and Elon, not to mention Nigel and Zia, have brought a lot of innocent cheer. This is not simply about great egos falling out: a voyeuristic thrill as the world's most powerful man and the world's richest man traded insults. It also poses a more important question about whether the revolutionary surge by the populist right, which began in America, is starting to collapse, weighed down by contradictions. After all, in taking aim at President Trump's 'big beautiful bill' in the cause of fiscal sanity, Musk put his finger on the glaring ideological fissure inside today's new right – the gap between traditional fiscal conservatives who believe growth comes from low taxes balanced by tightly controlled government spending; and the performative hucksters, happy to offer whatever the voter base wants, affordable or not. I'm well aware that this flatters Elon Musk, who has been happy to have his company suck greedily at the teat of federal spending, and who only seems to have seen the light when he realised how much the withdrawal of electric vehicle subsidies in the bill would have hit Tesla. Further, Musk's threats to cancel the Dragon rocket programme on which the International Space Station depends – threats he then reversed – and his accusation about Trump's involvement with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein – an accusation he then deleted – suggests a man on the edge. Some have pointed to Musk's disclosures about his ketamine use. Trump simply taunted him by saying he is 'losing his mind'. Either way, Musk doesn't look or sound much like a traditional Republican. The tech-titan lobby he speaks for is desperate for lavish US government support and subsidy – and, indeed, in its fight with Chinese rivals, has a strong case for long-term federal backing. If Musk is genuinely gone for good from Trumpland, and it's hard to see a way back, Jeff Bezos and Sam Altman will have their thumbs competing for the West Wing doorbell soon. Meanwhile, Musk's Doge, strongly backed in Silicon Valley, so far seems like a damp squib – the tree has defeated the chainsaw. But let's try to put all that to one side. There is still a fundamental difference between the pork-barrel, 'spend big, promise bigger' instincts of Trump himself, using borrowed money to fling tax cuts to his hugely rich friends, and the genuine anxiety of Elon Musk about a swollen federal budget and debt. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Does this divide expose the very nature of the Maga movement? It's powered by poorer, excluded Americans who may have deep hatred of 'woke' culture, but who are interested in their own economic position – blue-collar Americans who want factories brought back home, but also want to keep their benefits, and have a deep suspicion of the political elite. The Trump bill, slashing taxes for the richest while cutting Medicare and other programmes for the poorest, shows whose side he is on; if Musk's campaign to stop the bill by encouraging a platoon of rebel Republicans to block it in the Senate were to succeed, he would be doing a favour not just to the increasingly worried bond markets but also to the Maga base. Let's turn nearer to home, where the gone, gone-back-again Zia Yusuf, the pinging Reform UK chairman who had floated a British version of Doge, offers a parallel. Reform faces two substantial policy challenges. One is 'respectability' – how far to go in an anti-migrant, race-inflected direction in order to energise its coalition? The second is economic. Like Maga, Reform has a blue-collar, working-class base and is offering not just huge tax cuts of nearly £90bn a year but also spending increases of £50bn a year on things those voters want more of, such as the NHS. It says it can pay for this with cuts of £150bn a year. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says the numbers don't add up: 'Spending reductions would save less than stated, and the tax cuts would cost more than stated, by a margin of tens of billions of pounds per year.' This suggests, as with the Trump bill, that poorer Farage supporters would find their benefits under threat, while middle-class ones wouldn't get the tax cuts they wanted. Unsurprisingly, and after seeing off Reform in the Hamilton Scottish parliamentary by-election, Keir Starmer has jumped on this, comparing the Farage package to Liz Truss and accusing him of making the same bet – 'that you can spend tens of billions on tax cuts without a proper way of paying for it'. And so we come to this week and the Spending Review. Fundamentally, the fight ahead is about credibility and timing. Populists insist there are quick, almost painless short-term fixes to the long problem of low productivity and growth. They suggest you can slash taxes and simultaneously improve working-class living standards. Reeves' version of social democracy has an answer to this – the big investments announced this week in everything from nuclear power to transport connections. Invest, long-term and patiently, and the growth will return. It's not a quick fix. Voters must wait. Andy Haldane, the Bank of England's former chief economist, urges Labour to have an understandable 'people strategy' and more power for the regions and nations to give voters hope while the investment arrives. Because we are not a patient lot, and that is what Reform preys on. Haldane told the Guardian: 'Nigel Farage is as close to what the country has to a tribune for the working classes. I don't think there's any politician that comes even remotely close to speaking to, and for, blue-collar, working-class Britain. I think that is just a statement of fact…' Well, if so, isn't it an extraordinary one? Farage, an ex-City trader from the suburban south, is more of a tribune than Rayner, Phillipson, Streeting or Reed, who grew up in council housing and on benefits? Able to speak to working people in a way that the government, 92 per cent of whose ministers attended comprehensive schools, can't? This points to a familiar but catastrophic problem – the strange inability of this Labour government to communicate its cause vividly. By investing wisely, it can bring growth and therefore better times, but meanwhile it needs the fire of a Kinnock, the moral weight of a Brown, the birds-from-trees persuasiveness of a Blair. Yet too often, all we hear are wooden tongues. The lessons of the past fortnight are twofold. First, the right-wing populist insurgency, both in America and here, is fragile, not omnipotent. As the Musk episode reminds us, there is a difference between radical protest and traditional conservative thinking, particularly on the role of the state. Any coalition big enough to overwhelm social democracy can come apart quickly when personalities go to war. Although they sometimes run in parallel, American politics and British politics, Brobdingnag and Lilliput, remain different in structure, electoral make-up and rhythm. One must be cautious about those equal signs: the quick peace deal between Yusuf and Farage showed a sense lacking in Washington. Still, the mocking liberal laughter wasn't all ridiculous. But the second lesson is that, even with a plausible growth strategy, social democracy needs brilliant storytellers to keep a tired and sceptical electorate onside. This is a long fight. Starmer and Reeves are in it for years to come. But they have to become far better communicators. Nigel Farage, after all, is a man used to having the last, loud laugh. [See more: Reform needs Zia Yusuf] Related