-Leaders-Summ.jpeg%3Ftrim%3D342%2C2149%2C1090%2C0%26width%3D1200%26height%3D800%26crop%3D1200%3A800&w=3840&q=100)
Labour ‘should not aim to copy right-wing populism but offer new solutions'
Labour should not mimick right-wing populist strategies following disappointing local election results, a new report from The Institute For Public Policy Research (IPPR) has warned. Instead, the influential think tank urges the party to embrace a bold, progressive agenda to counter the rising tide of populism.
The IPPR, which played a key role in shaping policy during the Blair and Brown years, argues that simply rehashing past Labour approaches won't suffice in the current political climate.
Titled "Facing the future" and backed by former Labour Foreign Secretary David Miliband, the report serves as a counterpoint to groups like Blue Labour. The campaign group has suggested that Labour should adopt some of the rhetoric and policies of their right-wing opponents to combat the surge in popularity of parties like Reform UK.
Following significant losses to Reform UK in May's local elections, Labour has emphasised action on issues like migration and crime – areas where Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has taken a hardline stance.
However, the IPPR warns that this approach risks playing into the hands of the populists. The think tank, which has seen several staff members join Keir Starmer's team, contends that the "forward march of populism is in full swing" and requires a different response.
The report advocates for a forward-looking, progressive agenda as the most effective way to challenge the populist narrative.
Labour should 'shift from defence to offence, from reactive to proactive, from apology to confidence', and show itself to be 'a disruptor, not defender, of the status quo' in order to combat its insurgent political foes, it said.
The report, which is directed not just at Labour, but progressive parties across the Western world, suggested ministers face a hard task because 'the progressive engine of ideas seems to have run out of steam'.
'When parties don't have new ideas, they reach back for old ones, or imitate others. Neither of these approaches will work at a moment of great change and challenge,' it said.
In a stark warning not to rehash the ideas of New Labour, or even older Labour governments, the IPPR added that progressives 'cannot simply reach back to yesterday's men in search of their ideas, goals and policies'.
'Their world has dissolved, so their ideas are out of date,' the report added.
The rising importance of national borders, broken faith in the global financial markets, and a lack of common public ground due to the fragmented way people now read the news, are among the reasons Labour cannot simply attempt to re-hash the so-called 'Third Way' of politics it championed in the 1990s and 2000s, the IPPR said.
The populist right's brand is meanwhile boosted when Labour and other progressive parties attempt to ape their ideas, the think tank warned.
'The challenge is to address the changes and grievances they speak to, but with progressive ideas and solutions,' it added.
David Miliband, the former Labour foreign secretary and brother to Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, gave his backing to the research.
Mr Miliband, who wrote the report's foreword, said adopting new ideas could lead Labour to oversee a 'virtuous circle of social, political and economic renewal, in which security and opportunity reinforce each other'.
He added: 'That is what happened after Labour was elected in 1945 and 1997, and what is needed again. The policies of those periods are time-bound; no one is suggesting those policies should be regurgitated. But the lessons in how new ideas can power new politics are important.'
The report concludes by saying Labour and its political allies around the world must now discuss and share progressive ideas for governing in the near future, a period which could be 'destabilising'.
The Labour Government, because of the long period before the next general election is expected to take place, has a chance to play a 'co-ordinating role' in these efforts, it added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
26 minutes ago
- BBC News
Why Keir Starmer faces a political storm over welfare reforms
Angela Rayner has declared that the government will go ahead with its controversial legislation, aimed at reforming the welfare system, next a well-placed source told us it could still be pulled: "It's a live discussion."Conversations are continuing at the heart of government on the least worst course of action in the face of a significant backbench than 120 Labour backbenchers have signed an amendment calling for the proposals to be scrapped, making an embarrassing defeat for the government are exploring whether some potential rebels can be won over with concessions or whether it's better to avoid next week's vote entirely, and postpone until the suggest the Chancellor Rachel Reeves is "digging in". They fear concessions, if any, would only be offered from the dispatch box on Tuesday if defeat some in government believe this is seen as too much of a high-wire act, and don't want to risk defeat. Even if the reforms stumble through, one leading rebel predicted dire consequences. The subsequent bitterness in Labour's ranks, they suggested, would making it all but impossible for the leadership to handle their own parliamentary landslide election victory was just a year ago, so how could it now be even at the remotest risk of defeat on a flagship policy?Here are a few factors. Ignoring the signals This rebellion has been a long time in ignited the flame of rebellion was the government's own assessment in March that its welfare changes could force 250,000 people – including 50,000 children – into relative poverty. This did not take in to account new measures to get more people in to work, because these have yet to be implemented, but that headline figure made many MPs the government had a problem with party management should have become obvious when backbenchers were called in to meet officials in Downing Street to be briefed on the welfare changes early in March. Some of these usually loyal MPs emerged unhappy. One of them told us: "People won't wear it. The costs of being disabled aren't going down. They can't just force this through like the winter fuel cut."Another said they had made a "heartfelt" plea for a change of bells should possibly have rung when welfare ministers - including Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall - held a series of sessions with concerned backbenchers, and some of the testy exchanges were next milestone on the road to rebellion was in May when 42 Labour MPs wrote to the Guardian pushing for postponement of cuts and a the sirens should have wailed when more than 100 Labour MPs wrote to the government whips last only very small concessions – or "olive branches" as Department of Work and Pensions sources preferred to call them – emerged, discussions began behind the scenes among MPs on drawing up a 'reasoned' (at Westminster, this is a euphemism for 'wrecking') amendment - when dissenters would display their discontent in cabinet minister told the BBC: "Some of those who signed the amendment did so thinking that the Speaker wouldn't select it, but that it would make the strength of feeling clear and bring the government to the negotiating table."But the government hasn't sat down at that table and the cabinet minister believes that if next week's welfare vote goes ahead, "the Speaker would be mad not to select it" - placing the government in danger of defeat. Wrong way round A chunk of blame is being apportioned to the chancellor's fiscal rules – and to the chancellor all Labour MPs believe a 'broken' welfare system needs to be like the £1bn of extra support that Kendall secured for measures such as one-to-one coaching to help unemployed people into work, and a 'right to try a job' without a subsequent loss of benefits if it doesn't work the dissenting MPs wanted this approach to be used first, before most cuts to benefits took place, and they complain that too much of this funding is scheduled for later in the parliament, while the process of restricting Personal Independence Payments will begin in around 18 months. As one rebel put it: "The welfare changes are the wrong way round."Rachel Reeves had promised to stick by her "iron clad" fiscal rules, which mean that debt has to be on a trajectory to fall as a share of national income on a five year help meet these, she pencilled in £5bn of welfare Kendall told the BBC that the welfare reforms didn't start with a spreadsheet, many of her colleagues believe Reeves couldn't make the same MPs felt gave the game away was this: the chancellor found extra cuts at her Spring Statement in March, when the budget watchdog, the Office for Budgetary Responsibility, didn't think the numbers added some supporters of the reforms believe that the emotional case for them – getting people off the unemployment 'scrapheap', ending stressful re-assessments for the most vulnerable – were not made soon enough or forcefully minister – who predicts the welfare vote will be postponed – suggested that the jobs of Kendall and the chief whip Sir Alan Campbell were on the line. Asked if Reeves's position could be at risk, the minister said: "Keir will do that in this parliament but it's the last lever he will reach for. He'll sack his advisers at least one more time before it comes to that." Rebel Alliance Opposition to the welfare cuts is genuine and heartfelt among many of the Labour there is an underlying environment that might make conditions ripe for the names of those calling for a include people with front bench experience in opposition who hoped or expected to become ministers – and were overlooked. The names also include people who have direct experience of being on benefits, or of forming welfare policy, but who feel they weren't given their due or properly consulted by the party of them told me: "Party management has been appalling right from the start. Holding meetings isn't the same as listening - they have not listened to us. There has been a lot of frustration."This group of MPs would not have responded well to the prime minister's description of the potential rebels as "noises off" at a press conference on Wednesday. He can expect more noise as a half of those calling for changes are MPs elected for the first time in was supposed to have weeded out troublesome candidates, such as those close to the Jeremy Corbyn leadership, those with rebellious tendencies and dodgy social media histories. Yet the prime minister is facing the biggest rebellion of his what wasn't factored in by those around Sir Keir is that many of the new intake were brought into politics by protests about Conservative welfare policies. As one person involved in drawing up these reforms said, the welfare state is to Labour MPs what Europe was to Conservative according to one veteran MP – who has signalled her own willingness to rebel – some of her fresher colleagues are acting not just on behalf of disabled constituents but themselves. They have been inundated with constituents' complaints, they have small majorities and they want to distance themselves from unpopular policies. Big majority, big problem? Some of the difficulties the government faces may not have come despite the majority - but because of are only so many government jobs to go round. So MPs who believe they are never likely to become ministers are more open to acting independently. When whips or cabinet ministers warn colleagues that they may be killing off hope of a ministerial career if they rebel, the calculation may be that they are unlikely to receive preferment in any while big majorities look impregnable, many MPs aren't feeling very secure. Labour secured lots of seats on a small share of the vote in 2024 - and the more Labour lags behind Reform UK in the polls, the more discipline diminishes. As one minister put it: "This is the new reality of our volatile politics. Welcome to Italy."Some MPs also don't seem to feel personal loyalty to Keir Starmer - they feel that it was the electorate's desire for change rather than their party leadership that was responsible for their elevation to Westminster. Some of them tell me they now feel embarrassed by promising during the election campaign that disabled benefits wouldn't be cut – or accusing the Conservatives of considering withdrawing winter fuel payments when in fact it was their own party that subsequently did so. Resentments have been simmering but now the political temperature is being turned new MP told us: "In the first month, it's very difficult to stand up to your government and feel like you've got a voice, but I think in those intervening months that a lot of us have found that voice."We have found support amongst others. And we do feel confident in saying what we think is right and what is wrong."With a large majority, some backbenchers feel under-used. One MP observed that many welfare rebels had also thrown themselves actively into one side or the other of the assisted dying debate: "They got a taste for anger and organising" - including against fellow Labour MPs. One U-turn deserves another The U-turn on winter fuel – which many backbenchers welcomed – may also have convinced some potential rebels that if enough pressure is applied, the government will far from buying off welfare rebels by that U-turn, they seem to have been consequences of this are making some of their more loyal colleagues shudder. Bad blood is flowing between some of the favoured sons and daughters (in some cases quite literally) of the party hierarchy were ushered in to winnable seats close to the general election by the party didn't have to engage in the jeopardy of a local selection battle. The leadership expected loyalty in return but even a small number of them have baulked at the welfare reforms. One critic bemoaned that they were "parachuted into their safe seats and have already forgotten how they got here". Another MP said: "I'm afraid it shows many in the party just aren't fit for government."And one of the new intake doesn't have much time for indiscipline, either. He told us that he had learned his some of his colleagues were "spineless" and "treacherous".Warming to his theme, he feared the party was retreating to the comfort of its traditional vote-losing ways: "Classic Labour. A year into government and we're already screwing it up." Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to read top political analysis, gain insight from across the UK and stay up to speed with the big moments. It'll be delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Telegraph
28 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Starmer's pointless globetrotting proves how irrelevant he is
Sir Keir Starmer clearly finds burnishing his credentials as a statesman on the world stage far more to his liking than dealing with pesky domestic concerns, such as cutting disability benefits and the winter fuel allowance. British prime ministers usually seek solace in endless overseas jamborees once they have first served a lengthy apprenticeship in Downing Street. Tony Blair was well into his third term before taking refuge in foreign junkets as his domestic popularity waned. By contrast, Starmer, who now has the unenviable honour of the lowest net favourability rating on record, has developed the taste for travelling abroad remarkably early in his premiership. Rather than investing effort in rallying support for policies, 'Never-Here Keir' prefers to spend his time hobnobbing with other world leaders. Last week our Prime Minister was missing in action, attending the increasingly irrelevant meeting of G7 leaders in Canada. It was memorable solely for Donald Trump's sensible decision to head for the exit early to attend to the deepening Iran-Israel conflict. Starmer was in The Hague attending the annual get-together of Nato leaders, where he desperately sought to persuade an increasingly sceptical Trump administration that his Government really was committed to spending 5 per cent of GDP on defence by 2035. By that date, Starmer's undistinguished term in office will be a distant memory. And the defence of the realm will not have been improved a jot by the investment in rural broadband and national roadworks that Starmer now claims is a vital part of his plan to increase overall defence spending. A more detailed examination of the Government's defence plans – one that our allies in the Pentagon will be studying closely – is that there will be no new money to increase the number of troops available to fight the wars of the future. Starmer's boast at the Nato summit that the UK would meet the alliance's new spending target of 5 per cent of GDP 'to deepen our commitment to Nato' is nothing more than an elaborate Treasury 'smoke and mirrors' exercise. Even the highly publicised decision to buy 12 F-35A stealth fighters, which can carry tactical nuclear weapons, has been taken at the expense of buying more of the F-35B variant used by the Royal Navy's two 65,000-ton aircraft carriers, thereby severely diminishing their war-fighting capabilities. Nor does Starmer's endless globetrotting appear to have had any noticeable bearing on his ability to influence key events, as was evident during the Trump administration's decision to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. While Starmer has an unerring habit of making sure he is photographed next to Trump whenever there is a summit photo op, his ability to bring any influence to bear on the Trump administration's decision-making process is negligible. The first Starmer knew that Trump had given the go-ahead for the bombing raid was when he received a telephone call from the US leader at Chequers, after the B-2 stealth bombers were already in the air. It was merely a courtesy call from Trump, not a consultation with a key ally. The fact that Starmer was completely blindsided by Trump's decision to attack Iran is hardly surprising given that David Lammy, his hapless Foreign Secretary, had returned from meeting Trump administration officials earlier that week insisting there was still a 'window of opportunity' to de-escalate the conflict. The bitter truth is that, for all Starmer attempts to ingratiate himself with world leaders, no one is taking him seriously as a statesman. And this is no wonder given his default response when faced with an international crisis is to indulge in legalistic sophistry and equivocation. Starmer's inability to formulate a clear and coherent response when faced with a global crisis was clearly evident from his handling of the Gaza conflict, when he supported Israel's right to defend itself while at the same time backing the imposition of punitive measures against key members of the Israeli government. The prime minister's leadership failings were again in evidence in the aftermath of the US raid on Iran's infrastructure. While insisting that the UK remained opposed to the ayatollahs acquiring nuclear weapons, Starmer could not bring himself to issue a public declaration of support for Trump's decisive action, which has destroyed any hope the Iranians may have entertained of developing nuclear warheads in the near future. The result is that, for all Starmer's grandstanding at global summits, no one is going to take a politician seriously who is quite content to deceive the outside world about the UK's defence commitments, while at the same time being temperamentally incapable of making his mind up on international issues. Starmer may like to project the image of a global statesman, but the brutal truth is that few world leaders, least of all in Washington, have much interest in hearing the views – or lack of them – of Starmer and his Government.
BBC News
41 minutes ago
- BBC News
Nato: Five takeaways from Hague summit on hiking defence spending
For the Netherlands this was the biggest security operation in its history; for Nato's 32 member states the Hague summit was historic too. There were unexpected moments of levity in among the momentous decisions over the looming threat from Russia and raising defence spending to levels not seen since the Cold War. Here is what we learned from a whirlwind two days in The Hague. Big spike in defence spending The main takeaway is the allies' commitment to a 5% defence spending target, to be reached within a decade. It's a remarkable jump from the current 2% guideline, which currently isn't even met by eight Nato members out of 3.5% of that figure is meant to be achieved entirely through core defence spending on troops and weapons – while the remaining 1.5% can be put towards "defence-related expenditure".And that's a suitably broad concept that can apply to spending even only loosely linked to defence: as long as it is used to "protect our critical infrastructure, defend our networks, ensure our civil preparedness and resilience, unleash innovation, and strengthen our defence industrial base".Reaching that 3.5% core defence spending target will still be a significant ask for many Nato countries, many of which currently hover around the 2% to reach the 5% figure will have to be submitted annually and will have to follow a "credible, incremental path". A review will take place in 2029. One for all and all for one For as long as Nato has existed, its Article Five on collective defence has been a core principle that means an attack against one ally is considered an attack on all. So when Trump suggested on the way to the summit there were "numerous definitions" of the mutual security guarantee, it was a reminder of comments he made on the campaign trail last year, when he suggested if a country did not pay its way "I would not protect you, in fact I would encourage [Moscow] to do whatever they want".This summit agreement appears to put to bed any lingering concerns about Trump's intentions because it reaffirms "our ironclad commitment to collective defence". "I stand with [Article Five], that's why I'm here," he told reporters reassurance will be well received by Nato member states seen as under most threat, but then they paid their way anyway. And Trump has gone back to Washington with a deal that means all other member states have agreed to do up their spending too. Trump and the Russian war The Russia question was always going to be tricky. Most Nato countries – particularly those in close proximity to the Russian border – are in agreement that Moscow could pose a direct threat to them in the near future; Rutte himself has said Russia could use military force against the alliance within five year's end-of-summit declaration referenced – in no uncertain terms – Moscow's "brutal war of aggression" several Trump has had a much softer approach to Moscow, and has resisted treating it as an adversary. As such it was always unlikely he was going to approve a declaration that labelled Russia as the clear culprit for the bloody Ukraine war, now more than three years while the statement mentions the "long-term threat posed by Russia to Euro-Atlantic security" and reaffirms the need to provide enduring support to Ukraine, there is no specific condemnation of Russia in the communique. The nine Nato countries that missed their defence spending targetsUkraine in maps: Tracking the war with RussiaWho's in Nato and how much do they spend on defence? Spain accused by Trump of wanting 'a free ride' Ever since Volodymyr Zelensky's difficult experience in the White House last February, European leaders have sought to avoid getting off on the wrong foot with Donald Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez went to The Hague already mired in domestic political scandals and he was expecting a tough props up the bottom of the Nato spending league with 1.24% of economic output on defence. He came to The Hague insisting that 2.1% was plenty, and told reporters after signing the summit declaration that Spain considered the amount "sufficient, realistic and compatible with our social model and welfare state". The Spanish PM was noticeably aloof during the "family photo", preferring to stand on the end away from his Nato colleagues. There were suggestions that he had gone out of his way to avoid Trump Sánchez had already caught Trump's eye and the US president was having none of it."It's terrible, what they've done," said Trump, who accused Madrid of seeking "a little bit of a free ride". "We're negotiating with Spain on a trade deal but we're going to make them pay twice."Because Spain is a member of the European Union, Trump will find that difficult to do - but Sánchez will go back to Madrid isolated in Nato as well as struggling at home. Rutte and his 'daddy issues' No-one would have been more keenly aware of the potential pitfalls of this summit than Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte, who was involved in a surprising exchange with the US president in which he referred to him as "daddy".Rutte had already flattered Trump in a private message for "decisive action in Iran" that "NO American president in decades could have done". Trump had then posted his words on his social media network and Rutte denied being then in a joint appearance with Trump on Wednesday, Rutte reacted to Trump describing the war between Israel and Iran as "like two kids in a schoolyard" who had had a big fight."And then daddy has to sometimes use strong language to get them to stop."Asked if he had gone too far with his flattery, Rutte said he didn't think so: "I think he deserves all the praise."Trump, flanked by a smirking Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, seemed amused by the whole thing: "I think he likes me, if he doesn't… I'll come back and hit him hard. He did it very affectionately: 'Daddy you're my daddy,'" he laughed.
