The current suggestion that has been conveniently leaked to the BBC is that Starmer is going to be "Bolder"
The embattled PM will seek to persuade his MPs not to ditch him as Labour leader in a speech on Monday.
www.bbc.co.uk
What do we think he is likely to do to be considered as bold? A real attack at the root cause of our nations problems, or chasing Farrage rightwards?
Hopefully, the former, the fact that (whilst Reform got a lot of seats, often at the expense of Tories and Labour) the right didn't dominate the outcome as the Lib Dems and Greens also saw gains.
It depends on where in the country you look as to how Labour did.
Much of Southern England they rarely do well outside of urban areas, and where they did badly in the urban areas, it was often against the Green and Lib Dems.
If they can do something to help with the cost of living that could help. Maybe a monthly tax free threshold rise (i.e. for the duration of the Iran conflict) of £60 until the implications of the conflict are reduced. That would give many tax payers an extra £12 a month, which would help.
Although, because it's got a time limit to it, it's also not going to spook the markets.
If it had a minimum term of 6 months and reviewed every 2 with a 3 month notice period of it ending, it would give people stability that it wasn't going to be only a month or two and time to adjust once it is due to end.
Another could be grants for (say) plug in solar for homeowners in smaller properties (especially those with poor EPC ratings) which could help with their energy bills. Again something which could help a lot of people but easy enough to remove.
Taking a leaf out of the Tories "the right to buy" they could call it "the right to power", and focus on how this is putting money back into the hard working people of Britain and not into the profits of BP.
A closer move towards the EU and other allies (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc.) could be a bold move. It could set him very much against Reform, but under Brexit the right wanted a deal with the US (that's not as clear cut as it was, with all the talk of tariffs and the poor state of politics in the US) so not sure how the right are likely to argue for something other than closer EU ties.
Also, such a move isn't likely to shift more people towards voting for the right, as most are already there anyway. It also puts the right on the back foot as they have to explain what they would do differently.
Creating a scheme which looks fair but tough to give a reasonable way for people to claim asylum. For example, having safe heavens in key other countries where basic shelter is provided and their case heard.
If it was done at an EU level, the cost could be limited, but with states able to offer "free access" if the individual was of need to that country (such as being a doctor, or engineer).
The key thing is that getting here illegally becomes less attractive (why risk a boat crossing when you'll end up not in the UK whilst you're claim is decided and it may actually reduce your chance of ending up in the UK?).
Limits (or quotas) can be set and details of previous claims to EU countries shared.
That again gives the right something that they have to argue against. As the the defence of the policy is, "we've already set the limit lower than the current asylum approval rate, but can reduce it further if that's needed."
Likewise, it removes asylum hotels from being a target and a point around which people can gather (either mob like or figuratively) and so as the point of conflict isn't near them it reduces the cohesion of those opposed to asylum.
