World: Starmer seeks lessons from world leaders as Reform UK challenge grows

Sir Keir Starmer is expected to declare at Labour’s annual conference that the country stands at a crossroads, with Reform UK offering a path of division and decline and Labour offering unity and progress. The leadership is weighing how best to frame the contest as polls tighten and Reform erodes support for both Labour and the Conservative Party. Starmer’s anticipated speech centers on a choice between two paths for the country at a moment when the party’s direction is under close scrutiny as it seeks to translate opposition to a populist insurgency into a durable governing vision.

Labour’s response to Reform’s migration and cost-cutting proposals has been uneven, reflecting a broader tension inside the party over tone and strategy. Chancellor Rachel Reeves has questioned Reform’s claimed cost savings, calling the policy gimmicky in part, while Labour Party chair Anna Turley flagged unanswered questions and warned that certain policies could break up families. MP Sarah Owen echoed the concern about family separation but framed the issue as morally abhorrent. The patchwork response underscores a challenge: how to strike a balance between denouncing Reform as unserious and warning voters that its measures are too risky to trust.

International lessons loom large as Labour, aided by think tanks such as the IPPR, the Center for American Progress and the pro-leadership Labour Together, convenes a wide-ranging forum in London to distill electoral lessons. In Australia, Anthony Albanese’s government pursued a studied approach to immigration after taking power, tightening rules on student and temporary visas and delivering a measurable reduction in net migration while continuing to argue for skilled labour. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has chosen a different tack, avoiding a constant immigration spotlight while defending it as a contributor to a growing economy. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has taken a tougher line on asylum as part of a broader immigration stance. The common thread is that populist demands cannot simply be resisted with silence; progressive leaders are seeking credible, credible-sounding alternatives that gain traction with voters.

There is no single template for Labour to follow. The IPPR’s Harry Quilter-Pinner warned against adopting “the playbook of the right,” arguing that progressives should reject a narrative of extraction and instead emphasize the value of integration and opportunity. He told me that, on economic migration, there should be an assessment of whether and how quickly a UK citizen could be trained to perform a given job, and that more emphasis should be placed on what new citizens contribute to the country. Claire Ainsley, who was Starmer’s policy chief in opposition and now leads a centre-left renewal project at the Progressive Policy Institute, urged growing the seeds of doubt about Reform in the electorate over the next three years. Her view is that voters might cast protest ballots but question whether Reform is truly ready to govern or whether its policies add up. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has signaled a broader approach, promising that “nothing is off the table” when it comes to tackling illegal migration.

The strategy also hinges on addressing the broader sense of public disappointment and fairness. Ainsley says the party must go beyond immigration to demonstrate that people are worse off and feel the economy isn’t delivering a fair deal for them. Labour’s current messaging centers on the idea of “contribution” — convincing voters that they, not just others, benefit from the welfare state. Morgan Wild, chief policy officer at Labour Together, argues in a new report that the link between what people put into public services and what they get out has faded, and he urges Labour to restore trust by foregrounding the contributory principle: if you pay in, you should be able to see what you get out.

Clive Lewis, a left-wing Labour MP, acknowledged that a sense of anger and grievance among some voters is real. He has seen a friend who took part in recent demonstrations tell him that voters feel unheard. Lewis warned that Keir Starmer’s ability to persuade the electorate to back him against Farage will depend on more than speeches; it will require a fundamental shift in political culture inside the government and the country. Adam Langleben of Progressive Britain called for a more humble approach from progressive parties, noting that Labour must listen more to the electorate and avoid overconfidence after gains or defeats alike. He also urged a rethinking of patriotism: not surrendering it to the right, but redefining it for a diverse, modern Britain. He pointed to Jo Cox’s maiden speech, which celebrated diversity while stressing shared values: “we have far more in common than that which divides us.”

The flag, a historically contentious symbol for Labour, has resurfaced as a political emblem. Starmer’s team faces pressure to reclaim the flag as a unifying symbol rather than a wedge issue. Polling by Lord Ashcroft shows a divided public: 39% supported the appearance of union and English flags on lampposts, 28% disapproved, and about a quarter of voters were unsure or mixed in their views. The positioning is delicate: some voters see flag displays as hostile to migrants, while others view them as a sign of frustration with immigration. The party’s leadership will need to reconcile these sentiments while avoiding alienating quiet voters who might be drawn to a more hopeful, inclusive message.

Despite divisions, Labour believes a “progressive patriotism” is possible. Adam Langleben argues it can be achieved by embracing Jo Cox’s sense of commonality, while insisting that reform proposals are credible and deliver real benefits. Some Labour MPs emphasize that the task is not simply to out-argue Reform but to change the political culture in government and country so that voters feel heard, protected, and fairly treated. Milestones lie ahead: a major Labour conference in Liverpool next week where the party intends to flesh out its approach to immigration, welfare, and the economy, and where it hopes to present a coherent alternative to Reform’s agenda.

A central question remains: what is Starmer for beyond opposing Reform? Several insiders say a clearer claim about the party’s policy direction is essential if Labour is to translate its opposition into durable electoral support. The conversation around faith in the political process, the role of immigration in Britain’s economy, and the symbolism of patriotism will shape how Labour positions itself in the months ahead. The lesson drawn by some observers is that, while there is value in looking abroad for ideas, there is no one-size-fits-all answer to the Reform challenge. The party’s task is to adapt international lessons to Britain’s particular economic and social realities while presenting a credible, inclusive vision that speaks to a broad cross-section of voters.

The final calculus for Labour will hinge on the ability to build trust and demonstrate concrete policy benefits to households feeling left behind. It will also depend on how convincingly Starmer can articulate what Labour stands for, not just what it opposes. In a landscape where Reform has found a voice with a populist pitch and a reformist aura, Labour’s path forward will require a blend of economic credibility, humane immigration policy, and a refreshed sense of national purpose that can appeal to citizens across the political spectrum.

As Labour readies its Liverpool message, the party remains squarely focused on the electoral task at hand: to challenge Reform not only with policy arguments but with a narrative about inclusion, fairness and opportunity. The global chorus of centre-left leaders offers templates and cautions in equal measure, but the onus remains on Starmer to translate those lessons into a plan that resonates with voters wary of the future, and skeptical about promises that may one day depend on who is in government. The party’s next steps will reveal whether a progressive patriotism can be sharpened into a durable political project or whether Labour remains locked in a suboptimal balance between opposition and governance.