The below content first appeared in Politics.co.uk’s Week-in-Review newsletter, sign-up for free here and never miss this article.
One of the defining characteristics of the nascent Starmer project is its fear of derailment. After fourteen years in opposition, Labour is busily coming to terms with the novelty of power — and the British public, unacquainted in recent times to non-Tory rule, is adapting too. Therein lies a tangible risk for the new prime minister: that crises, borne of Labour’s inheritance or sparked by events, could embed narratives that his party will struggle to shake, hardening hitherto malleable popular perceptions.
This was the reasoning behind Labour’s infamous “sh*t list”, compiled in opposition by former Whitehall supremo Sue Gray. Stalked by uncertainty, Gray’s directory of departmental binfires spoke to Labour’s plan to deduce the foreseeable crises that could derail a new government, while managing expectations for a Starmer government in the medium term.
For the most part, Labour’s life in government has progressed according to the Gray’s designs. The focus on the prison crisis, with jails reportedly at risk of overflowing, and the “fiscal black hole” spoke to Starmer’s desire to confront his dismal inheritance head-on. Would-be controversial policies on the economy and criminal justice were exhibited entirely on Labour’s terms, guarding against outside objections.
BASC’s work with Cumbria Police leads to reduction in backlog
MDU calls on the government to prioritise action on clinical negligence costs
This, in essence, is what commentators mean when they refer to recent riots as Starmer’s first “test” as prime minister. The sudden, unforeseen outbreak of disorder meant the new government was forced to respond to an unfolding crisis in the moment, deprived of Gray’s groundwork. The political stakes, with possible derailment looming, were grave indeed.
The background to the unrest is well rehearsed: the disorder was fuelled by an online misinformation campaign after an attack in Southport, over a week ago now, left three young girls dead. Amid an initial dearth of information regarding the identity of the attacker, unfounded claims rushed the vacuum; far-right types falsely concluded that the suspect was a Muslim asylum seeker to stoke anti-immigrant and Islamophobic sentiment. In other words: a cocktail of malicious conspiracy theories, stirred by social media algorithms and likely hostile foreign state actors, marched goons onto Britain’s streets this week, and to disastrous effect.
***Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest election news and analysis.***
Starmer, that said, has faced the crisis with a steely assuredness. As events unfolded, the prime minister will have been steered by his experience of dealing with violent unrest during the London riots in 2011 as the then-Director of Public Prosecutions. After those riots, Starmer strict response saw almost 1,000 people jailed. A law and order breakdown might not have been on Sue Gray’s “sh*t list”, therefore but it’s the sort of “unknown unknown” that fits Starmer’s skill set.
Ministers struck back quickly with a series of practical measures designed to clampdown on wanton rioting. With unrest escalating, the Home Office unveiled plans to provide mosques with emergency security; a “wider deployment of facial recognition” surveillance featured among a raft of other measures, such as the provision of a “standing army” of specialist officers. Simultaneously, the criminal justice system has been working at pace to bring those responsible to justice. And already, arrested agitators are accruing jail time.
To riot, ultimately, is to utterly denounce and deny the authority of the state. The slightest sense of governmental weakness — on political, moral or legal terms — Starmer reasoned, would have emboldened the rioters.
Today, there is a prevailing sense that the worst of the riots is over; and Starmer, commentators are beginning to posit, has thus passed his first “test”. After all, his government remains firmly on the rails.
But the symbolism runs deeper still.
For months, both in government and opposition, Starmer has foregrounded the potent contrast between “performative” and “effective” government. Last week, the prime minister explicitly evoked this dichotomy in his first public response to the outbreak of rioting. “What has not worked well recently with the previous government”, Starmer declared, “is the performative politics of a government blaming everybody else and pointing fingers. That approach to me is not effective.”
He added: “My approach is different, which is to roll my sleeves up, get the relevant people around the table and fix the problems, and meet the challenges that we have as a country.”
The riots were a test, therefore, not reductively of Keir Starmer — as a man or politician — but of his mode of governance. Labour’s vow to govern “effectively” thus needed to yield results — and fast. With disorder having abated in recent days, Starmer reasonably contends that Britain is beginning to see them.
Another pertinent metric is that Starmer’s riots strategy, in terms of both policy and rhetoric, has been remarkably consistent. It’s an approach that bears stark contrast with the varying messages articulated by Nigel Farage, whose remarks both before and after the outbreak of rioting have come under considerable scrutiny.
Ahead of the first bout of disorder, Farage speculated as to why the stabbing in Southport was not being treated as “terror-related”, suggesting the “truth” about the identity of the suspect was being “withheld”. As the riots escalated, Farage rejected the view, accepted by ministers, that the blame lay at the door of the “far-right”. Of course, the Reform leader condemned “street violence” and “thuggery” in his initial video message. But he was forced to pick up the theme more forthrightly in a statement days later, outlining that, “The levels of intimidation and threat to life have no place in a functioning democracy”. Even then, the substance of Farage’s intervention focussed on the “mass, uncontrolled immigration” that he claimed had “fractured communities”.
Finally, in a combative interview with LBC Radio, Farage excused his initial response to the stabbing in Southport as having been influenced by misinformation; the Reform leader had simply been misled by “stories online from some very prominent folks with big followings”. Prominent folks, Farage continued, like internet misogynist Andrew Tate. It’s a remarkable revelation given Farage’s stated aim this parliament is to professionalise the Reform party’s operation, before an audacious campaign to be elected prime minister in 2029.
Today then, we are reminded just how far-fetched that ambition is. Indeed, in Farage’s response to the riots, we have seen how his political playbook — founded on an instinctual rejection of “establishment” authority, a canny sense of timing and suspense, as well as genuine ruthlessness — can falter and fail him. Farage’s attempt to wade back over the Rubicon this week reflects singularly poorly on his political instincts — razor sharp though they are typically, perhaps erroneously, considered.
There is reason to believe, moreover, that Farage has done real damage to the Reform project with his riots response. The party’s political soft underbelly is its potential to be associated, by its competitors, with extreme viewpoints and actors. Farage’s ultimately successful election campaign was, remember, marred by reports of racism in Reform’s activist ranks, as well as controversial comments relating to the Russia-Ukraine war.
Reform’s continued success no less than relies on Farage utterly eschewing any such “extreme” reputation this parliament. In his response to the riots, the Reform leader has chosen the wrong moment to go soft — potentially lowering his party’s electoral ceiling as a result. Duly, Farage’s favourability ratings fell this week, according to YouGov, among both “Leave” voters in the 2016 EU referendum (-11) and Conservative voters (-9) — two constituencies Reform really needs to be advancing in if it is to secure future successes.
But beyond Farage, there is a sense also that the Conservative Party has missed an opportunity to stigmatise Reform over its riots response. Shadow work and pensions secretary Mel Stride has proved the most strident in his criticism of Farage’s evolving stances — but the responses of other leadership contenders haven’t always been so clear. Of course, Rishi Sunak’s disappearing act (reportedly to California) has deepened the sense of Tory aimlessness. As such, with Reform and the Conservative Party fumbling for coherence in the face of the riots, Labour’s claim to be the “political wing of the British people” (an old Blairite refrain, often referenced by Starmer) has by extension strengthened.
***Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest election news and analysis.***
In the end, the foundational claim of Faragism is that only it can authentically articulate Britain’s national “voice”. But the polling data confirms that it is Starmer and Labour who occupy the true centre ground of public opinion at present.
A YouGov opinion poll this week found that most Britons view the rioters as “thugs” (67 per cent), “racist” (58 per cent) and “far-right” (52 per cent) — language Starmer has employed throughout his many public appearances. Overall, 85 per cent of the public opposes the unrest, with just 7 per cent saying they support the violence. Moreover, 49 per cent of Britons think that those taking part in the recent riots should receive sentences that are harsher than usual for that kind of crime.
Starmer, of course, outlined his riots stance long before any of the above polling was conducted. That he has ended up on the right side of public opinion speaks, arguably, to rather sharper political and moral instincts than many give him credit for. In turn, Starmer’s proponents would stress that the PM, a purportedly “ordinary” Briton, simply understands the country he governs. It was a common Labour criticism during the long election campaign that the ex-Tory government — obsessed with “exhausting”, “fatiguing” politics — governed in wilful ignorance of the nation beyond the “walls of Westminster”.
But this is not to say that the aftermath of riots will be devoid of political risk for Starmer’s government. Consider also the other curious subplot of Britain’s recent unrest: the war of words between tech tycoon Elon Musk and the government.
The prime minister’s plan to clamp down on the rioters has placed him on a collision course with those who disseminate, host and tolerate misinformation — both at home and abroad. It is a battle, the polling indicates, in which Starmer can count on the support of the public; 86 per cent of Britons, YouGov research has found, view social media as a key driving force behind the unrest.
This week, technology secretary Peter Kyle met with social media firms to urge them to do more to clamp down on inflammatory and far-right content. But there are already signs the PM plans to go further, having hinted on Friday that the government needs to “look more broadly” at the sector. It comes after Musk claimed “civil war is inevitable” in the UK and, even, promulgated fake news insinuating Starmer planned to establish “detainment camps” in the Falklands. (Musk did delete this latter post).
If Starmer is to prove both tough on rioting and tough on the causes of rioting, a showdown with social media misinformation and its grifting propagators surely awaits. Everything we know about our new prime minister suggests he will feel politically and morally obligated to engage.
Josh Self is Editor of Politics.co.uk, follow him on X/Twitter here.
Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest election news and analysis.
Elon Musk deletes post spreading fake news about UK ‘detainment camps’
