Election mauling means Labour needs to get radical & controversial soon – does the party have the balls to do it?
But does he really understand?
3
3
The Prime Minister insists: 'We must deliver that change even more quickly, we must go even further . . . '
Which sounds a lot like more of the same, chalking up the extraordinary breakthrough of Reform as a mere protest vote that will melt away.
It's a bold reaction to the public telling you that they don't like what they have seen so far, only to tell them they are going to get even more of it even sooner.
Yet the breadth and scale of the Government's pummelling last week should stop that coping mechanism dead in its tracks.
What Thursday's message from the public showed is Plans for Change and policy tinkering is not going to cut it.
Nor are the traditional playbooks of party politics.
Starmer threw the kitchen sink at Nigel Farage, branding him on the eve of polls a Putin puppet who was going to personally bill voters for their hip operations.
Fatal error
Labour screamed, like the Tories tried before them, that Reform were a bunch of lazy cranks that never turned up to Parliament and cannot be trusted to run a whelk stall let alone a council.
But the voters heard it all and thumbed their noses.
Instead they were led by the continued cost-of-living pain after that promised growth failed to ever turn up, and immigration now topping voters' concerns across the country.
Farage promised an earthquake & he delivered - Labour are badly bruised & Tories face being brushed aside as opposition
The Tories borked(?) it, Labour promised change and the public feel like they have been sold a pup.
So why not give the other guys a go?
They can't be any worse than the current or last lot.
Which leaves the Government in a tricky bind — fighting on uncomfortable ground but frankly with very little to lose.
If Labour don't get radical and controversial soon, then they're going to be out on their ear anyway.
What Thursday showed was just how out of touch Westminster is to how hardened public opinion over borders has become, and a classic Westminster tinkering response would be a fatal error.
Fatal error
Sacking a few ministers in a panicked reshuffle is not going to be enough, and those in No10 pinning their hopes on a new immigration White Paper to be published in ten days time should temper expectations.
Yes, there will be some red meat in it, tightening up absurd legal migration rules that allow successful asylum seekers to ship over their families on the taxpayers' tab, but it risks looking like too little too late.
Some close to Starmer get it.
One senior Government source hit back at reports the Education Secretary and Culture Secretary were for the chop, saying: 'Just sacking Bridget Phillipson and Lisa Nandy would be a joke response.'
But Labour MPs from all wings of the party are starting to loudly wonder whether this cautious government has the balls to turn things around.
Hemmed in by a slavish unwillingness to go to war with the international order over migration, the scale of the radicalism required to really change the country goes against the grain of everything this PM believes.
Starmer's enemies on the left have already gone public with their criticisms, which is hardly a surprise given they have been carping almost since the moment he entered office.
But even the most ardent loyalists were reeling from Thursday's bloody nose this weekend, keeping their powder dry publicly, for now, but acutely aware No10 needs a far punchier strategy.
There are real shades of Rishi Sunak's doomed premiership in the predicament that Starmer finds himself in right now.
Inheriting a mess largely not of their own making, no one doubts their technocratic ability but questions always linger over their killer political instinct.
Lofty ideals
Sunak entered Downing Street desperate to keep the show on the road but refusing to countenance bold measures like leaving the European Convention on Human Rights or calling time on various nonsense from the United Nations.
He was constantly accused of not wanting to upset his global elite mates or being too squeamish to pull levers previously thought of as unthinkable, but now being demanded by the anger of the public.
But by the time Sunak woke up to the scale of the problems facing the nation and tried to get radical, especially on migration, it was too late.
A warning for his successor right there.
But can Mr Human Rights, happiest when mingling with his fellow lawyers on the international circuit, really be the one to get his hands dirty and reject the European Court?
The contradiction at the heart of Starmer's premiership is about to play out.
We are about to find out whether the PM's desire for power, to retain it and really use it, trumps the lofty ideals that made him the man he is today.
There's still a fair few years before Starmer has to face all of the voters, and with his massive majority, if any one can rip up the established rules, it is him.
If he doesn't do it, then the person who replaces him will be elected with a mandate to shoot his sacred cows anyway.
The public seem to have woken up to the scale of the response needed — will Sir Keir?
RUMOURS abound that No10 is mulling some dramatic Whitehall changes.
Both Labour peer Maurice Glasman, who has the ear of powerful Downing Street chief Morgan McSweeney, and Jonathan Rutherford, who is advising No10, have both suggested breaking up the Treasury in recent days.
Lord Glasman told the New Statesman: 'I believe the abolition of the Treasury is necessary for our economic renewal. It is an outdated institution at odds with contemporary reality.'
And he called for 'a new economics ministry instead of the Treasury and Business in which priority is given to industry'.
While Rutherford told The House magazine: 'I'd destroy it if I had half the chance. I would split the Treasury, like Harold Wilson, but not in a ministry – I'd put it in No 10 . . . frankly, this is the age of Trump. You've got to start doing stuff.'
With Rachel Reeves letting it be known she would quit before having to scrap her sacred fiscal rules to limit government borrowing, could they be on to something?
Eyebrows have been raised by a senior official from former Cabinet Office boss Pat McFadden's team who has been sent to keep an eye on things at the Treasury, with McFadden tipped to run any emerging super department.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
17 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Scottish Tories eye Reform electoral pact
Senior Scottish Conservatives have discussed striking an electoral pact with Reform UK for the Holyrood elections next spring. One figure backing a deal told The Telegraph it could help avoid splitting the vote on the Right and kick the SNP out of power in Scotland. The deal, which would not need to be made public, would see the Tories either not stand candidates or go easy in areas where Reform is better placed to win and vice versa. It comes as Nigel Farage 's party sits above the Conservatives in third place in opinion polls for the Scottish Parliament elections next May. A pact does not have the backing of Russell Findlay, the Scottish Tory leader, whose team released a statement ruling out the possibility when approached by The Telegraph. But the fact a deal is being considered at senior levels in the party underscores the scale of Reform's popularity surge north of the border and the concerns it has triggered among Tories. In Scotland, Reform now has 15 councillors, 14 of whom used to be Conservatives. It is in marked contrast to other political parties previously run by Mr Farage, such as the UK Independence Party (Ukip), which struggled to get a foothold north of border. One Tory MSP has privately spoken of a defection 'watch list' in Holyrood of those suspected of switching to Reform. Mr Farage also waved away the idea he would agree to any such pact, telling The Telegraph: 'No chance. The Tories are dying in Scotland and I've got no desire to do a deal with them whatsoever.' The idea of some form of agreement, public or private, between the Conservatives and Reform has become a common discussion point in Westminster. Average UK-wide voting polls have Reform in first place on 30 per cent of the vote, with the Tories in a distant third on 17 per cent. Labour is in second place on 22 per cent. Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, has ruled out a pre-vote deal with Mr Farage, but speculation continues with the next general election not due until 2029. The recent by-election result for the Scottish Parliament seat of Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse underscored the challenges of Right-wing parties splitting the vote. Labour won the seat with 32 per cent of the vote, followed by the SNP on 29 per cent. Reform came third on 26 per cent. Had the Tories, who got 6 per cent, not stood a candidate, it is possible Reform would have beaten Labour and taken the seat, though pollsters often caution against hard conclusions when predicting voter behaviour. Mr Farage has agreed to election pacts before. The Brexit Party, the precursor to Reform which Mr Farage led, had criticism of the Tory handling of the issue of Europe as its heart. Yet he still agreed not to stand candidates against sitting Conservatives at the 2019 general election to help Boris Johnson win and get a Brexit deal through the Commons, securing the UK's departure from the European Union. Despite interest in some quarters of the Scottish Conservative Party, other figures strongly played down the possibility of a pact. One Scottish Tory politician who has spent years in influential positions said: 'Churchill's phrase comes to mind, 'You don't negotiate with a tiger when your head's in its mouth'. We're in competition with Reform – we're not in partnership with them.' The source said Scottish Tory supporters had brought up the prospect of a deal with Reform but that there was little chance it would be adopted by the leadership. Another senior Scottish Tory said: 'Why would Reform do a deal? I can see why we might be interested in it, but why would they?' There have long been suspicions on the Right of coordination between Labour and the Liberal Democrats at general elections to maximise the chances of Tory defeats. The Lib Dems surged from winning 11 MPs at the 2019 general election to 72 MPs at the 2024 general election with almost no increase in overall vote share. The party's strategists have talked about how they ruthlessly focused on a small number of winnable seats rather than competing hard everywhere. Labour was likely to have benefited from the decreased campaigning in non-target seats. But there are reasons why striking some form of deal would be less likely in elections for the Scottish Parliament than the UK-wide Parliament in Westminster. The electoral system for the Scottish Parliament has a proportional element, meaning as well as individual constituency races a party wins some MPs for their overall vote totals. Reform, whose strategists hope to get between 10 and 20 MSPs next spring, is expected to get their victories almost entirely via this way, known as 'the list', rather than winning constituencies. That could provide a disincentive to strike a deal with the Tories, given a lower overall vote total would likely mean fewer MSPs thanks to this proportion element of the election. In polling for next spring's Scottish Parliament elections, Reform is on around 17 per cent, above the Tories on around 12 per cent. The SNP is top, followed by Labour. A year ago, it looked likely that Labour could win power in Scotland but a support slump since Sir Keir Starmer took office last summer means the SNP is now well-placed to remain in office. A Scottish Conservative spokesman said: 'Nigel Farage has said he is content with the SNP winning another five years in power and Reform stood multiple pro-independence candidates in the general election, so no, this won't be happening. 'The Scottish Conservatives want to get the SNP out of power, while Reform will gladly help the nationalists.'
North Wales Chronicle
an hour ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Fact check: Recognising a Palestinian state, misleading tsunami video and deportations vs returns
Is the Government on track with its pledge to recognise a Palestinian state? On July 29, the Prime Minister announced that the UK would recognise Palestine as a state in September, ahead of the United Nations (UN) General Assembly, unless Israel meets certain conditions. Labour's manifesto committed to formally recognising a Palestinian state 'as a contribution to a renewed peace process which results in a two-state solution'. A 'two-state solution' refers to a proposed framework to resolve the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in which a sovereign Palestinian state is established alongside Israel. Previous efforts at a peace process did not result in a sovereign Palestinian state. UK governments have long been in favour of a two-state solution, as well as recognising a Palestinian state as part of a process towards that goal. All members of the G7 group of countries have pledged support for a two-state solution, as has the EU and China. Palestine is currently designated by the UN as a 'permanent observer state', a form of non-member state, meaning it cannot vote on decisions made by the UN's main organs and bodies, such as the General Assembly. However, the majority of UN member states have formally recognised Palestine. According to media reports, as of July 2025, some 147 UN member states formally recognised Palestinian statehood, not including France, which in the same month committed to recognising Palestine at the General Assembly in September. The UK is not included in this figure, although it does have a Consulate General in Jerusalem to assist British nationals in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It has been reported that a number of UK peers have questioned the legal basis for any recognition of a Palestinian state. Full Fact has contacted the Government for comment on this. How fact checkers helped set the record straight on PM's viral video When 31-year-old Abby Raworth first realised her photo and name were being shared online – falsely linked to a viral video involving the Prime Minister – she assumed it was a mix-up. Posts on social media claimed that the woman in the video was not mum-of-three Nicola but was really a 'paid actress' or 'actress and agent' named Abby Raworth. Full Fact's investigation brought to light how much was being written about her online 'without any regard for if it was correct or not.' Abby has spoken to Full Fact about her experience, telling us: 'What shocks me is how little people bothered to do regarding checks before they used someone's name and accused them of something. There is a lack of accountability for what comes out of peoples' mouths and if it had happened to any of those people they would have a different opinion on it.' We're grateful to Abby for sharing her story to help show exactly why Full Fact exists to counter the harm caused by misinformation. Old tsunami video circulates amid Pacific evacuations A video circulating online amid major evacuations across the Pacific is claimed to show a tsunami which has taken 'thousands of lives'. But this is misleading. The footage shows three people, including the person filming, narrowly escape huge waves that crash into some small boats on a shore. It was shared online following news of an 8.8 magnitude earthquake off the coast of Russia, which triggered the evacuation of almost two million people across Japan. Warnings were also put in place in other locations including Hawaii, Ecuador, Indonesia, Peru and China. A caption shared with the video said: 'Massive Earthquake triggers Tsunami taking thousands of lives in seconds with little to no warning.' But this footage is not current, or related to the earthquake in Russia or the subsequent tsunami warnings. It actually showed a tsunami which occurred on the west coast of Greenland in 2017, triggered by a landslide. That tsunami did not kill 'thousands', as stated in the social media posts. Four people were killed, and nine others were injured. The same footage has been wrongly shared in the wake of other earthquakes before. Has Labour carried out 'record deportations'? Labour MP Mike Tapp recently claimed that the Government has carried out 'record deportations'. We've frequently seen MPs and ministers using the word 'deportations' when referring to all immigration returns. Not all immigration returns are 'deportations'. We don't actually know how many meet the official definition of a deportation, which the Home Office defines as 'a specific subset of returns which are enforced either following a criminal conviction or when it is judged that a person's removal from the UK is conducive to the public good'. We do know, however, that enforced returns – the category of returns which includes deportations – account for a minority (26%) of all returns carried out under Labour during its first year in office. According to ad-hoc figures published by the Home Office, during Labour's first year in office a total of 35,052 returns were recorded. We don't have the data to compare this exact period to the same period in previous years, but official immigration statistics show that this figure is not a record for the number of immigration returns over a 12-month period, going back to 2004 when this data series began. These figures show that immigration returns over a 12-month period were consistently above 40,000 between 2010 and 2016, for example. It does appear, however, that the 35,052 returns in the first year of this Labour government represents the highest 12-month figure since 2017. While we don't know how many of these returns were official 'deportations', the figures show that the 9,115 enforced returns carried out between 5 July 2024 and 4 July 2025 also do not represent a record. While this figure is the highest number of enforced returns carried out over a 12-month period since 2018, prior to 2018 enforced returns were consistently above 10,000 over a 12-month period. MPs should use statistics transparently and with all relevant context and caveats, and quickly rectify oversights when they occur.
Powys County Times
an hour ago
- Powys County Times
Hostage families: Releases will play ‘no part' in UK plan to recognise Palestine
Sir Keir Starmer announced earlier this week that the UK would take the step of recognising Palestine in September ahead of the UN General Assembly unless Israel meets certain conditions. Members of four British families met with Foreign Office officials on Thursday night seeking clarification on whether conditions would also be placed on Hamas, their lawyers said in a statement. 'However, it was clear from the meeting last night that the British Government's policy will not help the hostages, and could even hurt them,' they said. 'We do not say this lightly, but it was made obvious to us at the meeting that although the conditions for recognising a Palestinian state would be assessed 'in the round' in late-September, in deciding whether to go ahead with recognition, the release or otherwise of the hostages would play no part in those considerations. 'In other words, the 'vision for peace' which the UK is pursuing… may well involve our clients' family members continuing to rot in Hamas dungeons.' Sir Keir had said the UK would only refrain from recognising Palestine if Israel allows more aid into Gaza, stops annexing land in the West Bank, agrees to a ceasefire, and signs up to a long-term peace process over the next two months. While he also called for Hamas to immediately release all remaining Israeli hostages, sign up to a ceasefire, disarm and 'accept that they will play no part in the government of Gaza', he did not explicitly say these would factor into whether recognition would go ahead. The families have a range of views on what the future political settlement should look like but their priority is to keep the hostages 'above political games,' their lawyers said. They are now urging the Prime Minister to 'change course before it is too late'. 'At a minimum, the British hostage families request that the Government confirm that without the hostages being released, there can be no peace, and that this will be an important part of its decision as to whether to proceed with recognition and its current plan.' Sir Keir said that he 'particularly' listens to hostages after criticism of his plans from Emily Damari, a British-Israeli who was held captive by Hamas. The families of Ms Damari and freed hostage Eli Sharabi were among those who met with the Foreign Office. Also present were relatives of Nadav Popplewell, who died while held captive, as well as those of Oded Lifshitz, who died, and Yocheved Lifschitz, who was released. Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds has said that the UK will not get into a 'to and fro' with Hamas over the recognition plans and that 'we don't negotiate with terrorists, Hamas are terrorists'. US President Donald Trump disagrees with Sir Keir's plans, as well as those of France and Canada, which have also pledged their countries will recognise Palestine. 'He feels as though that's rewarding Hamas at a time where Hamas is the true impediment to a ceasefire and to the release of all of the hostages,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said.
