Ben Judah: If Labour foreign policy were truly...
If Labour foreign policy were truly agile it would seize on this as also a landing zone for now for Britain and Ukraine and present this to the country as a compromise.
Ben Judah: Labour paying the £36 million...
Labour paying the £36 million pound price for its foolish cautious approach to party donations and funding. If anywhere there needed to a radical rule re-set it was here.Ben Judah: There is still a section of the British Right...
There is still a section of the British Right that think this is their guy and the European Commission is their enemy.Ben Judah: What we are seeing with Miliband’s...
What we are seeing with Miliband’s sanctions package is the deepening of the post-American turn in British by foreign policy that began under Keir Starmer. Whereas previously London had been defined by a deferential Atlanticism, which prized access to Washington and looked for it to leadership on issues like European security and Israel-Palestine, Labour has brought a new approach to the Foreign Office in response to Donald Trump. First on Ukraine and progressively on Israel-Palestine, the UK has together with France taken the lead in building non-US led activist coalitions of Western states to push Washington or the international community in a certain direction. Each time this has been in response to the US dramatically abandoning old collective allied understandings and approaches to either European security or the Middle East. We saw this first emerge under Keir Starmer with the Foreign Office assembling of the Coalition of the Willing on Ukraine, then building an action coalition to put sanctions on extremist Israeli ministers and then moving to recognise Palestine as a state when David Lammy was Foreign Secretary. It has been customary to mock Britain’s declining influence with Dean Acheson’s famous old barb that the country “had lost an Empire but failed to find a role.” But those claiming the UK has no influence are actually missing what’s happening — the UK has found a role and an influential one, partially as a consequence of America abandoning hers. What that role is constitutes pulling together CANZUK countries (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK) with European Union members and their associates into these issue coalitions of non-US led Westerners. This move against the Israeli settlement project to attempt to protect the possibility of a two state solution from an extremist Israeli government is a continuation of this geopolitics.Ben Judah: I think the Tories have a way back...
I think the Tories have a way back and could get there in time but I think an early election would be framed by Labour and the media as Andy vs. Nige and that would consolidate blocs around each respectively. I think Kemi would struggle to get heard in this fight.Ben Judah: Vice President of Le Pen’s party...
Vice President of Le Pen’s party saying recently if they take power they will “cut the tap” towards Ukraine. Given how central an Ukraine supporting alliance with France has been in our post-Trump approach to geopolitics the government needs urgently to start thinking what could be coming in 2027 through.Ben Judah: Heavens the Ukrainian war leader...
Heavens the Ukrainian war leader, who always wears a suit and tie, would be horrified to see the British Prime Minister stepping off a night train without a suit and tie! Will nobody think about how this might offend Zelensky?Ben Judah: We have fallen behind with China...
We have fallen behind with China now ahead of the West in 66 out of 74 critical technologies tracked by @ASPI_org and making huge leaps in their application. However, we do not have in Britain an effective public policy institute plugged into Westminster and Whitehall that is tracking what we need to either quickly adopt, militantly copy or stringently guard against from China when it comes to this technological revolution we are not leading anymore. This level of policy ignorance is both dangerous and unacceptable. Looking to government to fix this is has it the wrong way round. This is where major philanthropists and business leaders need to take a project to government and seek its support. The government should then incentive this to grow by tax deductible donations for donors and clear links to honours for a national priority project.Ben Judah: A big part of the Starmer...
A big part of the Starmer to Burnham comms shift is this. Grided Cabinet minister appearances are all sharply down in favour of a Prime Minister always being the lead reaction on the day. I really like it, most of the country barely register these people as message carriers. Though to be clear if I was still working for a Cabinet minister, I’d probably hate it.Ben Judah: Between Emanuel’s speech yesterday and Burnham’s intervention today...
Between Emanuel’s speech yesterday and Burnham’s intervention today it is clear Western progressives are moving towards a position of sanctions on Israeli settlements and settler organisations. That’s a clear policy for where you want to be in 1-2 years of putting costs on the occupation. There’s also a clear policy of where you want to be eventually with a two or a “twenty-three” state solution. What’s lacking is any thinking on credible, viable, interim steps a post-Netanyahu Israeli government or a post-Abbas Palestinian Authority could conceivably carry in a 3-5 year horizon that could radically improve people’s lives. There is a real intellectual vacuum here, it’s quite striking with Democrats really, which Europeans should be thinking ahead about and to try and fill with serious proposals developed with Egypt and the Gulf. This is where we need peace thinking.Ben Judah: Burnham should use his credibility...
Burnham should use his credibility to call for Greens, Liberals and Labour to stand down candidates and back an exceptional Man In White Suit independent tactical voters can rally around. That will squeeze down the Tory vote and show even in his home turf 40-45% are against Farage.Ben Judah: We’ve heard a lot about what Keir...
We’ve heard a lot about what Keir Starmer got wrong. We’ve heard less that he got unlucky. Donald Trump has played a big role in derailing his premiership. 1️⃣ Trump’s return fuelled a surge in support for right wing populism. Reform was at 19% on November 4th 2024. By his inauguration they were at 25% and neck and neck with Labour. In between: non-stop media coverage of Trump’s agenda. 2️⃣ Trump’s victory emboldened Musk who incessantly attacked Starmer over grooming gangs and promoted far right accounts, memes and politicians such as Rupert Lowe through his algorithm. Since then the X and Facebook algorithm have rewarded right wing political content since has fuelled the loathing of Starmer. 3️⃣ Trump’s win turned Net Zero from a common Western cause championed by the White House with major cross-party support in the UK into a wedge issue. This opened the way for right wing media and politics to crusade against Net Zero as a Labour eccentricity. 4️⃣ Trump’s interventions in UK politics to humiliate the Prime Minister over his issues from Net Zero to immigration hurt. Not to mention the painful images of Starmer’s interactions with him as he pursued British interests. These genuinely weakened his authority as the Greens hoovered up disgruntled progressives. 5️⃣ Trump made the world economy worse from his misconceived tariffs to his Hormuz-blocking war on Iran, knocking out the green shoots of better growth. This has together brought higher inflation, more expensive gilts and lower growth than had the Democrats won. ▶️ Starmer’s political mistake was not to pivot. This should have happened when JD Vance upbraided Zelensky in the White House and brought in a freeze of military aid on Ukraine. When Zelensky flew to London afterwards to seek the embrace of his closest ally — the UK — it was a top most watched moment of the year. ▶️ Starmer should have addressed the nation like a war leader and announced though we remained allied with the US we had heard loud and clear they expected us to be able to face Russia alone and that we must now prepare for such a war. ▶️ Starmer should have announced a war readiness package of higher taxes on the super rich and ending the triple lock to pay for rearmament. He should have said a trade war was becoming and he was immediately restarting talks with the EU to forge a “customs alliance” that would see us rejoin their customs union to prepare for a tariffs war. At that moment the media would have clapped and so would the PLP. ▶️ But the pivot never came. And that is a warning to Andy Burnham as he takes over Number 10. More on what he should do next to deal with Trump on @ArguablyMag .Ben Judah: That’s because they are all addicted…
That’s because they are all addicted to X and see the world through the feed. Number 10 and FCDO comms on this app need to be much more aggressive and forward leaning to shape better narratives about Britain in this environment — desiccated civil service posts won’t do.Ben Judah: How is this chart hiding Brexit...
How is this chart hiding Brexit damage? The first trick here is indexing everyone at 100 in 2016 at the moment of the shock to the 🇬🇧. The second is to measure the flow not the stock of accumulated investments. That lets you hide the fact 🇬🇧 stock is permanently smaller behind a graph just showing the flow of new investments is increasing. In layman’s terms: let’s imagine you were getting 5% a year salary increases in the years leading up to 2016 above those of your peers. The shock in 2016 then reduces that to a similar level to them or below. What a chart of investment flows indexing everyone in 2016 at 100 does is just show you afterwards creeping up in line with the rest of them — it hides the years of accumulated funds you would have had without Brexit. Clever! That’s how you hide 🇬🇧 business investment is 12-18% below where comparator economies predict it should be — per CEPR’s December 2025 synthetic control analysis of 33 advanced economies. Or the fact, quoted below, 🇬🇧 business investment was down 16.2% on the eve of the pandemic on the OBR’s own pre-referendum expectation. No control group required for that.Ben Judah: What these accounts want you to believe…
What these accounts want you to believe is that this is not the result of Brexit. But it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Before the vote the UK’s business investment was growing at 6% a year towards the top of the G7. After the referendum we can see the UK fell back towards the bottom of the G7.Ben Judah: Stepping back what's going on…
Stepping back what's going on is these accounts want you to believe 🇬🇧 economy has been in permanent stagnation to hide the stagnant growth Brexit has brought. Critical to that is dismissing the strong growth and strong investment 🇬🇧 was recording prior to 2016.Ben Judah: Whether we like it or not…
Whether we like it or not we are marching towards an AI and robotics driven economy that will structurally require less migration and likely higher unemployment of those already here. This requires an honest conversation about the future of our approach towards low wage labour migration. What the economy needs in 2036 will not be what it needed in 2016.Ben Judah: You will see Brexiteers cling to the argument…
▶️ You will see Brexiteers cling to the argument that because the 🇬🇧 grew recently at a similar rate to 🇫🇷 and 🇩🇪 there is no Brexit damage. ▶️ But economists at @GoldmanSachs , @nberpubs and others are not measuring the outcome but rather modelling what 🇬🇧 itself would have achieved had it not done Brexit: i.e. no new trade barriers and no new red tape with our larges market. ▶️ Every serious organisation that has modelled this has found a significant and growing Brexit drag on where the 🇬🇧 economy like have been otherwise. ▶️ What they are saying is we’ve weakened the 🇬🇧 economy to be like 🇫🇷 and 🇩🇪 when we should be growing much faster. ▶️ This is what @nberpubs found in its 2025 paper — “The Economic Impact of Brexit” by Bloom, Bunn, Mizen, Smietanka & Thwaites: 1️⃣ “By 2025, Brexit had reduced 🇬🇧 GDP by 6% to 8%, with the impact accumulating gradually over time” 2️⃣ “Investment was reduced by between 12% and 18%” 3️⃣ “Employment by 3% to 4% and productivity by 3% to 4%” 4️⃣ “These forecasts were accurate over a 5-year horizon, but they underestimated the impact over a decade” “These large negative impacts reflect a combination of elevated uncertainty, reduced demand, diverted management time, and increased misallocation of resources from a protracted Brexit process.” ▶️ How much has this cost us by these calculations? Some £180–240 billion.Ben Judah: To summarise my point…
To summarise my point: Brexit has led to lower growth and higher inflation, thus a worse fiscal position, necessitating higher interest rates and creating more expensive gilts than we otherwise would have had worsening our gap compared to France since 2020. To summarise @afneil point: the worsening gap with France is purely Truss and Reeves and unlinked to Brexit. Make your own mind up!Ben Judah: According to the most conservative…
According to the most conservative OBR estimates the costs of Brexit works out at roughly £900 per citizen per year. Again according to the most conservative estimates the Brexit induced premium our debt interest costs over France works out a roughly £280 per citizen a year. The average voter in this Lancashire constituency has roughly £700 genuinely discretionary spending a month.Ben Judah: There is a lack of seriousness in the Franco-British plan…
There is a lack of seriousness in the Franco-British plan for a Maritime Coalition to “unblock the Straits of Hormuz.” It will only operate —“with Iranian permission.” Our Gulf partners don’t need us to do deals with Iran to reopen the Straits. They can do that on their own. Presenting what are essentially media and Trump management plans like this as a serious endeavour in the Gulf to allies who can see through them undermines our credibility. Better modesty and honesty: we can offer some maritime support once others make a deal to help drive down maritime insurance. https://gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-france-to-lead-multinational-strait-of-hormuz-military-planning-conference#:~:text=At%20the%20Summit%2C%20they%20called,and%20conduct%20mine%20clearance%20operations.Ben Judah: What’s happening now is not just a crisis…
What’s happening now is not just a crisis of leadership in the Labour Party — it’s a crisis of ideas, a crisis of policy and a crisis of faith — what is the program to turn the country around? The Prime Minister’s challenges are right to call out this lack of a project has been his great failing. But I don’t see any of them presenting more than competing poll numbers for now. This is, in a way, even more concerning.Ben Judah: Starmer's authority is now crumbling…
Starmer's authority is now crumbling. But even those most committed to a new Prime Minister should pause for thought about what it means for Britain in the world. For all his many, many domestic missteps, Keir Starmer has genuinely led on Ukraine, make tough calls with Trump and rebuilt relations with Europe by working intensely with President Macron and Chancellor Merz. Labour in government was shocked at how quickly it was swamped by foreign affairs from Gaza and Ukraine, to Trump and Iran. This isn't going to change. However Starmer's challengers have no foreign policy experience, no geopolitical worldviews, no foreign affairs teams and no experience in explaining our place in the world and its tumult to the public. But if they succeed that will be half their job. What's the plan for a geopolitical pivot to Europe? What's the strategy to deal with Trump and our fragmenting Western alliance as China's Axis of Authoritarians deepens? What's next for Britain's extensive diplomatic and security role when it comes to Ukraine? Who will be maintaining key connections to the White House? Changes at the top are often necessary. But they are delicate and not cost free internationally. In diplomacy so much is bound up in personal connections and trust built up over time. Building since 2016, these musical chairs at the top have now become so intense, with Prime Ministers lasting roughly two years and Foreign Secretaries now annuals, our allies and partners are frustrated. I've heard from European and Gulf leaderships first hand it is hardly worth investing diplomatically in a counterpart who's suddenly gone and thus hardly worth investing in Britain.Ben Judah: @SadiqKhan on how and why Rejoin…
. @SadiqKhan on how and why Rejoin: “Inward investment is lower than it would be, trade is lower than it would be. In London our economy is about £30bn smaller than it would otherwise be, the average Londoner is about £3,400 poorer because of Brexit.”Ben Judah: I am, like most British Jews, growing...
I am, like most British Jews, growing really frustrated with this vague talk about “division and unity and hate.” We have a very specific problem here. An IRGC cut out is recruiting disaffected Islamist-radicalised men, many long known to the police and negligently left ambling about, to a conduct a targeted intifada against the London Jewish community. And both our counter intelligence and counter terror forces are failing to intercept them. I don’t need a mass London rally of well wishers or cultural luminaires to post their wishes — nice as that is — I need an actual security strategy to clamp down on this so my community can go about our lives in peace as is our absolute minimum right. And I need politicians to call the problem for what it is — not good vibes.Ben Judah: I want to stress British Jews…
I want to stress British Jews are super concentrated in NW London. there are only 250k of us. Roughly around 100k of us live in this area and surrounding areas. It’s like a small town that’s now under sustained attack. This is the heart of the community and every connected Jew across the country will ties, friends, family here. It’s not felt like disjointed and episodic attacks but like small town the size of Worcester is under attack by an IRGC-cut out.Ben Judah: Reflecting on the State Visit to Washington…
Reflecting on the State Visit to Washington, there are only really two interesting things left to say about it. The first is to note the Royal Family’s rising importance in our diplomacy since the death of Elizabeth II. This is because of the rise of two sets of politicians: Gulf monarchs who view a relationship with the Royal family as part of their identity and pedigree and Trump and his acolytes. In all these encounters the King genuinely matters diplomatically. This has only increased as the political carousel has spun out of control with annual foreign secretaries and biennale Prime Ministers. The second is to note the extraordinary and rising power the King’s Private Secretary has — effectively the King in Whitehall — on all such matters and how these encounters are shaped. Truly the apex of Civil Service power and anonymity that role — entirely beyond Foreign Office influence, let alone an elected official’s scrutiny. I think those roles, with their curious heritage allowances, are by far the most desirable left in the system.
21, April