Preparing for Power: What Democrats Can Learn from UK Labour

The pincer movement of far-left and right-wing populists has become a growing threat to democracy. Democratic institutions have historically been most gravely damaged when challenged from both extremes. Under Trump, the damage is already real. A Democrat presidency in 2028 remains possible, but victory must be accompanied by preparation for power by the Democratic Party.

The UK offers lessons in both failure and recovery. Genuine problems must be addressed before they are monopolised by populists. Bold, reasonable alternatives must be offered, and their benefits explained. The greatest risk is often to avoid risk altogether.

Political capital must be spent with purpose, as well as earned

Keir Starmer's 2024 to 2026 government demonstrated what not to do. In July, his former strategist Morgan McSweeney admitted that Labour had been insufficiently prepared for government in 2024, and were unable to demonstrate how change could be delivered quickly. ^[1] The withdrawal of winter heating payments from most retirees, followed by their almost total restoration in June 2025, made the problem tangible. ^[2] Political capital had been consumed without lasting achievement whilst appearing dithering and unsure.

This is the first lesson. Democrats should enter office knowing what their first difficult decisions will accomplish and communicate this clearly through the 2028 election with boldness and intent.

Burnham's succession had been anticipated in an earlier article.^[3] His 29 September conference speech offered a clear purpose, contrasting with Starmer’s cautious approach. Savings from pension reform were pledged to a National Care Service, providing support at home and in care homes without charges at the point of use. ^[4]

Britain's state pension, broadly comparable to Social Security in the US, currently rises annually by the highest of inflation, wage growth or 2.5%. This is known as the “triple lock”. From April 2030, inflation protection and the 2.5% floor would remain, but the guarantee of matching annual wage growth would be replaced by protection of the pension’s value relative to earnings over time. This would reduce the cost to the state. ^[5] The political cost was acknowledged, and a benefit offered in return. An honest trade in political capital.

Stronger public control of water, a publicly owned competitor in electricity infrastructure and more public housing were also proposed. [4] The intent, instead of ideological, was to focus on the cost of living.

Additionally the UK’s relationship with the EU was reopened, with full membership subsequently included among the options. Rejoining was not promised, but an economically consequential and politically risky question was confronted. ^[6]Burnham has been bold. Whilst these positions carry risks, continued caution would leave the argument that nothing changes unanswered. Whilst some bridges were burnt, many were strengthened with the exact parts of the electorate that Labour appeals to.

The second lesson. Democrats should therefore distinguish reasonable ambition from recklessness. A programme cannot be defended merely because nobody was offended by it.

Small gains can help sustain support for difficult reforms. Burnham has also supported allowing beer in the stands at football (soccer) matches, where drinking within sight of the field is currently prohibited. ^[7] No fundamental economic problem would be solved, on the surface this is not profound. But an ordinary pleasure would be restored, giving voters an easily understood reason to welcome a change. Political capital must be built as well as spent.

The decline under Starmer and recovery around Burnham's arrival are visible in the polling. ^[8] Polling matters as a measure of public acceptance, though the graph cannot isolate the causes of recovery or establish lasting success. Nevertheless, the lesson in communication is clear. Benefits must be explained in terms voters recognise, progress reported and failures acknowledged.

Democrats need to make their governing programme as understandable as their case against Trump.

^[9]

Answer the problem then shape the political agenda

A grievance can be acknowledged whilst the populist remedy is rejected. On 8 September, Labour expanded sanctions against violent Israeli settlers and announced a ban on imports from settlements, still requiring implementation. Wider trade with Israel and support for a two-state solution were retained. ^[10] A genuine problem was answered through targeted action. The substantive concession was that something needed to be done. A proportionate alternative was then offered, without accepting every demand made in its name.

UK Greens subsequently adopted “Zionism is racism”, provoking internal opposition and the resignation of former Green mayoral candidate Sandy Ruthven. Senior party figures including former leader Caroline Lucas and former co-leader Carla Denyer opposed the motion. ^[11] Labour's measures have not been proven to have caused this escalation yet it left the Greens needing to differentiate themselves, prompting a position that many in their own party did not support. Opponents can be given room to expose their own divisions without the need for them to be pointed at.

Yet another important lesson for the Democrats. Once you show you are a substantial alternative, populists’ desire to distinguish themselves by adopting more extreme positions may alienate their own supporters, whilst familiar accusations of inaction become less convincing.

On immigration, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, Britain's minister responsible for immigration and policing, paired enforcement with proposed lawful pathways to citizenship for refugees. ^[12] Control can thereby be explained through orderly migration and public safety. People need not be treated as inherently illegitimate because dangerous or unauthorised pathways must be restricted. The lawful alternatives must also be substantial enough to offer a credible choice. Orderly migration shows control, in turn this policy position and proportionate response can appeal both to the left and right of politics.

Reform and Restore Britain, competing parties on the British far-right, illustrate another division within a populist movement. Their rupture preceded Labour's latest immigration proposals and cannot be credited to them. ^[13] Whether relevant, proportionate policies encourage further splits remains speculative. The proposed advantage is simpler: when something credible is being done, the claim that established parties offer nothing becomes harder to sustain.

Imitation is not a reliable substitute. In an open-access study of Western European elections, Krause, Cohen and Abou-Chadi found no general reduction in radical-right support when mainstream parties adopted more restrictive immigration positions. Increased defections towards the radical right were also observed. ^[14]That does not prove the alternative proposed here. It simply challenges the assumption that copying populists will neutralise them.

Those who shall remain nameless, an act of quiet non-cooperation

Quiet non-cooperation, as discussed in a previous article [15]^[15], combines firmness in action with restraint in rhetoric. Cooperation should not be offered unconditionally to an adversarial player. Non-cooperation should instead be proportionate to their behaviour, whilst cooperation remains possible when it is reciprocated. Otherwise, concessions can reward the very conduct that prompted them. Crucially, this firmness need not be advertised as punishment or accompanied by attacks on the opponent. ^[15]

Burnham’s approach illustrates perfectly how the two elements can work together. Genuine grievances have been acknowledged and substantial alternatives offered, whilst more extreme demands have not been adopted. The political response is therefore firm, but its explanation centres on the problem and what the government proposes to do about it. His conference speech followed this rhetorical discipline closely. Other party leaders Farage (from the far-right Reform party), Polanski (UK Greens), Badenoch (Conservatives) and Davey (Liberal Democrats) were not named once. SNP leader Swinney was mentioned once in a personal account. The principal populist challengers were thus denied both the attention and a personalised confrontation around which to construct a narrative of persecution. Burnham explained his own programme and the benefits it was intended to deliver. ^[4]

For Democrats, the lesson is to answer legitimate concerns without rewarding adversarial demands. Reform can be pursued without accepting the DSA’s programme. Democrat politicians should avoid cooperation as much as possible with the DSA but they should do this quietly. Agreements with moderate Republicans can remain available where cooperation is reciprocated but caution should remain given that many will choose to denounce MAGA once its downfall is confirmed.

Boundaries should be communicated through decisions, with the rhetoric directed towards public benefits rather than partisan retaliation. Opponents are then left to explain their own obstruction or escalation. This is quiet non-cooperation in practice.

This does not mean that Democrats should derail the prosecution of Trump’s administration for any case of criminality. To the contrary, the proportionality of non-cooperation demands it. Democrat politicians should simply avoid being seen to dance on their political graves.

Political capital meets the bond market

“It's the economy, stupid”, as the Clinton campaign's maxim is remembered, remains relevant. ^[16] Fetzer's research links austerity-driven welfare reductions to increased UKIP support and political dissatisfaction. ^[17] Improving everyday security is therefore a serious long-term response to populism. The study does not establish that any spending programme will reverse it, but material grievances cannot simply be argued away.

The UK budget is due on 28 October. ^[18] The Gilt (British government bonds) markets are critical to the cost of government borrowing. Higher yields increase the cost of new borrowing and refinancing. Thus where political capital and financing constraints can collide.

The budget will test whether Burnham's programme can be funded credibly and with fiscal discipline. Wise investment can improve productivity, grow tax revenues and reduce borrowing needs over time. These gains depend on what is purchased and how well it is delivered. Poor spending, excessive demand and inflation can instead erode living standards, whilst higher debt costs crowd out services. Global conditions also affect yields, a risk for every government.

Burnham has yet to prove himself on this test, and popularity and rhetorical capabilities cannot substitute for it. The apparently prudent approach of avoiding investment to reduce borrowing in the short term can stifle economic growth thus tax revenue in the long term. Hence a balance of pragmatic investments must be found. Once again communication is critical but this time not to the electorate but to the bond markets.

Will the lessons be learned?

Democrats must prepare before winning, then be bold in setting an agenda. Meaningful alternatives to the DSA’s far-left agenda, as well as MAGA’s proto-fascism, should answer genuine grievances, with their benefits explained clearly and repeatedly.

Apparently simple policies, without profound consequences, should be sought to build political capital among voters whose loyalty is uncertain but whose support can realistically be won. It should be accepted that difficult reforms will consume some of that support, and polling must remain one important, though limited, metric for this exchange of political capital.

Democrats must be pragmatic. For example, markets should be strongly supported where they work, whilst alternatives should be considered on the occasion where incentives conflict with public needs. One such case in the US context would be prison reform.

There are, of course, limits to the lessons that can be learned from the UK. If Democrats regain power in 2028, institutional reform, including reform of the executive branch, will be a priority, adding to the challenges of governance beyond those Labour has faced. This does not detract from a very simple point. The US electorate will remain vulnerable to populist movements without an obvious improvement in the standard of living of the average American, alongside a government that communicates clearly and acts boldly.

Democratic rights must be proudly defended. Democracy is substantially easier to destroy than to create. The pincer movement of political extremes cannot be defeated by focusing only on gaining power in the short term and ignoring the bigger picture of elections beyond 2028 and the potential for further violent swings of the political pendulum.

^[19]