May 1 elections brought bad news for Britain’s main political parties but good news for the far-right. As the Financial Times reported, “Reform UK leader Nigel Farage on Friday claimed he now leads Britain’s main opposition to Sir Keir Starmer’s government after his party won the Runcorn & Helsby by-election, ousting Labour by just six votes.” Of course, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has claimed many things in the past – that Britain would benefit hugely from leaving the EU for example – which have not always been reliable, so it is tempting to argue that we should ignore this latest comment.
This article argues that would be a mistake:
- Around the world, the far-right is threatening – and in many places, most recently the US, has been able – to come to power with a radically destructive agenda;
- Voters want their lives rebuilt – and they are increasingly prepared to gamble on something different; so
- Progressive politicians must raise – and change – their game, or they are destined to fail.
Around the world, the far-right is threatening
The US under Trump is the most obvious example of the threat from the far-right, but it is far from the only one – Hungary, which in 2004 was considered sufficiently democratic to be allowed to join the EU, has become an autocracy under Orban; and even in the heart of the EU, the French Rassemblement National (formerly called the Front National) is a strong force, and in Germany the same is true of Alternative für Deutschland.
Although the far-right are keen to hide the worst aspects of their programmes before they are elected – Trump, for example, repeatedly denied knowing anything about Project 2025 – once in power, all restraints come off.
Many people in the UK (and in the US) are aghast at what the implementation of Project 2025 means in practice: the US social contract is being rapidly dismantled, and the state of its democracy eroded by weakening democratic checks and balances, using state power against personal enemies, undermining the rule of law, suppressing dissent, and seeking to control the media. It also has major geo-political implications for the rest of the world, and severe environmental consequences.
Many are incredulous that in a modern democratic country, someone with Trump’s history and such an agenda could be elected. Why would anyone vote for him? That is a vitally important question.
And given the results of this week’s elections, it forces us to ask whether UK voters could vote for a Farage government with a similar agenda.
Voters want their lives rebuilt
Trump’s first term was not a huge success, and Biden was elected.
Under Biden, the message was “we are doing all the right things, the economy is booming, unemployment is down, the stock markets are up, what is not to like?” The democrats seemed to believe that their track record would see them re-elected.
But many people are desperate about their own lives. In the US, the federal minimum wage has remained unchanged at $7.25 an hour since 2010 – it is now worth the equivalent of $5.10 (after inflation). The US is a rich country and yet over 10% of the population lives in poverty. Real (inflation-adjusted wages) fell sharply after 2019. And bankruptcy rates, which had been falling since 2010, have been rising again since 2022. Biden’s government did not fix these things.
So, when Trump promised to fix these problems, people listened. Not because he was especially plausible, but because he was the only one who directly addressed them.
The humourist H L Mencken wrote, “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong.” Trump provided such an answer: the cause of your problem is immigrants and LGBT people supported by the woke establishment – the solution is to put a strong man in charge who is not afraid to challenge the establishment and tackle the problem.
Why did people listen? There are several possible reasons: the level of media and social media support for Trump was far greater than for Harris; the Biden/Harris campaign was interrupted by Biden’s obvious decline leading to his replacement by Harris mid-campaign; Harris failed to stake out a distinctive position from Biden’s, even though Biden was way behind in the polls. All of these are true.
But one obvious explanation is this: that Trump offered a solution to US voters’ problems – albeit one which was clear, simple and wrong.
Progressive politicians must raise their game
What are the options for the UK government now? Broadly, there are two:
- Stick with the small-target strategy which worked so well in opposition – but which has been (predictably) a failure in government; or
- Create an answer to people’s problems which is clear, simple and right.
Sticking with the small target strategy
The small target strategy worked while Labour was in opposition because they could not be blamed for the results of the last 14 years. The right-wing press were eager to trash any radical suggestions Labour might make, and so it was a sound strategy not to make any.
Now in power, Labour have not enjoyed support either in the mainstream media or on social media. Despite that – which means they have little to lose – they have not announced any policies of the kind that would excite media criticism. Starmer promised a decade of national renewal, but Labour have no sufficient plans for delivering it. Instead, they have drawn red-lines for themselves which make delivery nigh on impossible.
On the economy, the government has said that the Chancellor’s fiscal rules are inviolable – these are arbitrary rules that each Chancellor sets for him or herself, they are not rules of economic probity and they can be changed: in fact, we are now on the tenth set of such supposedly immutable rules! This might be funny if the rules were not forcing us into yet another round of public sector cuts – cuts which will make national renewal an impossibility. On Brexit, despite economists and the voting population being agreed that leaving the EU was the wrong decision, Labour has said it will not even seek to rejoin the single market. (Of course it is not in the gift of the government simply to rejoin, but ruling out even trying is defeatist). Even on immigration, Labour seems to have accepted Reform’s position that immigration is a ‘bad thing’ which must be reduced.
Labour’s current position is complex, unclear and wrong. It is not clear what it means by national renewal – the government talks about GDP growth, but it does not talk about real median wages (and it seems to want public servants’ pay to remain below inflation – i.e. to decline further in real terms). It has unclear targets for poverty reduction. It does not have a target for the health of our public services or our schools and universities. It does not have a target for the health of the population, or to ensure that life expectancy starts to rise again. And its red lines mean that it will fail to deliver even on GDP growth.
But realistically, what is the alternative to the small target strategy?
Be clear, simple and right
Realistically, the Labour government faces a difficult challenge in delivering national renewal. Equally realistically, it is nothing like the challenge faced by Attlee’s government in 1946. Materially and financially the challenge was far greater after the war than it is today. At the end of the Second World War, Government debt to GDP stood at over 250%; the cost of servicing that debt was over 5% of GDP; more than half of national income had been diverted to the war effort and over 5 million people mobilised into the Armed Forces; some 5% of national wealth been destroyed, and 1% of the population lost (and the equivalent figures were even worse in some other countries).
Nevertheless, in 1948, at a time when the ratio of government debt to GDP was still over 200%, Attlee’s government founded the NHS. Also in 1948, it passed the National Assistance Act, which abolished the poor law system and established a social safety net to protect the poorest and most vulnerable, completing the work of the National Insurance Act of 1946. The social contract in the UK was transformed. Everyone, whatever their background and current financial state had access to high-quality healthcare. Everyone had access to a safety net for times when things in their lives went wrong. Everyone played a part in building this new world.
And what was the economic cost of all this largesse? We enjoyed the Golden Age of Capitalism – the most successful 35 years in our nation’s economic history. There was no cost: when you do good things, more good things happen. Our government needs to show the same level of determination that Attlee showed.
Attlee was fighting against Beveridge’s five giants: Want [poverty], Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness [unemployment]. Some of them are beginning to return today, but they were bigger then. We, however, also face two new giants, cousins of the original five, which were not an issue for Attlee: Despair and Division. As Margaret McMillan, Professor of International History at Oxford University, explained, “The shared suffering and sacrifice of the war years strengthened the belief in most democracies that governments had an obligation to provide basic care for all citizens.” That shared suffering and sacrifice may have been necessary to win the war. As evolutionary biologists David Sloan Wilson and Edward O Wilson put it, “Selfishness beats altruism within groups. Altruistic groups beat selfish groups. Everything else is commentary.”
Along with a mood of altruism and solidarity, there was one of hope. After six hard years, during the early part of which defeat seemed inevitable, the UK and its allies had emerged victorious. Even more than is usual after a war, the victors felt that good had triumphed over evil. Yes, there was a challenging task of reconstruction – but that was nothing compared with the challenges of the war itself. The national mood then was one of hope and solidarity.
So, what should our government do? Two things:
- Recognise that the world has changed since they were in opposition and that a far more fundamental approach (such as the one we set out here) to rebuilding is needed – one which is incompatible with its existing red-lines;
- Recognise that the UK population is beginning to despair of the main parties and that this brings a real risk that what is happening to America today could happen to the UK in four years’ time. Tackling this risk must be a key priority now, not for a hypothetical second term.
Conclusion
Trump is a threat, of course, but he is also a gift.
In Canada, Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party was almost 20% behind in the polls in January when Trump came into power, and the Conservative Party of Pierre Poilievre (then a Trump fan) seemed to be cruising to victory. When Trump started to talk about Canada needing to become part of the USA, Trudeau’s replacement Mark Carney seized the opportunity to argue that only he had the strength to fight back against Trump. Carney was robust in his criticisms of Trump and in his calls for national unity. And he won.
This means there is a huge opportunity for progressive politicians in the UK to do the same thing. Of course, it is traditional for UK politicians to talk about our ‘special relationship’ with the US – but this is another red-line we should not be afraid to cross. Trump has demonstrated, and the vast majority of UK voters believe, that he is dangerous and untrustworthy. Our leaders should acknowledge that and highlight the threat he poses to democracy worldwide. And they should robustly condemn those – like Farage and Badenoch – who laud Trump. Canada is more dependent on the US economically than we are; if they can stand up to Trump, then so can we.
Even more importantly, the extraordinary challenge of Trump makes it obvious that red-lines drawn up in another time may need to be erased. Trump makes a pivot to a genuine policy of national renewal politically feasible.
This is a temporary opportunity which we must seize.
If you would like to be sure your Labour MP is thinking hard about this, tag them into this article and share it widely using the buttons below. Or write to them. This website makes it easy: https://www.writetothem.com/
And take a look at the 99% organisation and join us.
