J ANTHONY

Political writer. Power, populism, institutions and democratic change. Author of Burnhamism, Reform UK Ltd & Two Flags, One Playbook.

[J ANTHONY @JAnthony_Writes]

If you’ve found me through one of my political posts, this is what I write about.

BURNHAMISM
Can the Manchester model really govern Britain?

REFORM UK LTD
What does it mean when a political party is a company?

TWO FLAGS, ONE PLAYBOOK
How Trump and Farage turn politics into identity.

Three books examining power, populism, political institutions and the changing shape of British politics.

Independent analysis. No party cheerleading.

Paperback & Kindle on Amazon 👇
https://t.co/l1pPTHVxTI

[J ANTHONY @JAnthony_Writes]

You’re arguing a different point. I explicitly said the Mail’s claims should be challenged with evidence.

My concern is the language used by someone seeking political power in response to journalism they believe is wrong.

If the photograph is misleading, expose it. Correct the record. Criticise the paper.

But “the Government must step up” and “it’s time we sorted out the press” raise a perfectly legitimate question: what, specifically, does he think government should do?

Asking that question isn’t “bending over backwards” for the Mail. It’s applying the same standard to politicians regardless of whether I agree with them.

[J ANTHONY @JAnthony_Writes]

There is a serious policy question underneath the rhetoric here.

Employers should absolutely be accountable for illegal working.

But Britain already fines employers up to £60,000 per illegal worker, and right-to-work checks are being extended into the gig economy.

Reform is proposing something significantly more radical: fines of 10% of global revenue and criminal liability for bosses on a strict-liability basis.

The question isn’t whether illegal working should be punished. It should.

The question is whether these penalties are proportionate, enforceable and legally workable.

That’s the detail worth scrutinising.

[Zia Yusuf @ZiaYusufUK]

A Reform government will pass the ‘Deliveroo Law’. 

Companies that hire illegal migrants will pay a heavy price. 

We will fine them 10% of their global revenues. 

Bosses will be held criminally liable - on a ‘strict liability’ basis.

They will be sent to jail. 

We will also introduce a Turkish Barbers tip line that will allow YOU to report suspicious high street shops. 

Because for every British pub lost in recent years, seven vape shops have opened.

Many are fronts for organised crime.

Money raised from these fines will go towards regenerating the communities that illegal migrants have victimised. 

That means compensation for victims of migrant crime, rewards for police forces that make arrests, and funds to rebuild high street businesses. 

The Tories and Labour made Britain one of the softest touches in the world for illegal migrants.

Under Reform, Britain will have the toughest penalties in the world for those hiring illegals.

[J ANTHONY @JAnthony_Writes]

I think that’s a much stronger argument.

There is a legitimate debate about whether independent press regulation has sufficient teeth, particularly when a correction weeks later reaches a fraction of the audience exposed to the original claim.

But that’s different from saying “the Government must step up”.

Stronger independent accountability is one thing. Political power over what newspapers can publish is quite another.

We should be able to argue for the first without drifting into the second.

[J ANTHONY @JAnthony_Writes]

Agreed. If a newspaper uses misleading imagery or presents evidence dishonestly, challenge it hard.

My concern is with the next step: what does “the Government must step up” actually mean?

The answer to bad journalism should be better journalism, scrutiny and correction, not politicians deciding what the press is permitted to publish.

[J ANTHONY @JAnthony_Writes]

Dynamic pricing works when consumers can change their behaviour.

Fly Tuesday instead of Friday. Take the train off-peak. Delay a journey.

A public toilet is rather different.

If councils genuinely move towards peak-time pricing, they’re effectively charging people more precisely when they have the least choice about using the service.

There’s a broader political question here too.

We’re increasingly using market-pricing mechanisms for services people don’t experience as optional.

Water may be heading in a similar direction.

At what point does clever demand management simply become charging people more because they need something?

[Dean Dunham KC @deandunham]

MADNESS ALERT

Just when you thought “surge pricing” couldn’t get any more ridiculous… 🚽😂

We’ve had surge pricing for taxis.

We’re now talking about variable pricing for water.

And apparently councils are exploring surge pricing for public toilets!!!

I’m struggling to think of a service where the consumer has LESS ability to wait until the off-peak tariff kicks in. 🤦‍♂️

[J ANTHONY @JAnthony_Writes]

@mikegyi @andyburnham Thanks Mike. This is exactly the sort of thing I’ve been trying to unpack in Burnhamism.

If you ever get the chance to have a look, I’d genuinely be interested in what you make of it. All feedback welcome 😊

[J ANTHONY @JAnthony_Writes]

I don’t disagree with most of that.

Russia has conducted hostile activity against Britain for years, and supporting Ukraine is clearly in our strategic interest.

My point is about the threshold, not whether Russia likes us.

Supplying defensive equipment, supplying long-range weapons, and helping provide the capability for strikes inside Russian territory are different degrees of involvement.

That doesn’t automatically make the latter wrong.

But “Russia is already hostile to us” isn’t a reason to stop distinguishing between those thresholds. In a conflict involving nuclear powers, those distinctions matter.

[J ANTHONY @JAnthony_Writes]

Exactly. And I think that’s deliberate.

Most governments arrive with policies and then try to persuade the public that they solve people’s problems.

Burnham appears to be reversing the process: identify the everyday frustration first, then build the intervention around it.

It sounds obvious. Politically, it’s quite a significant change in method.

[J ANTHONY @JAnthony_Writes]

Something worth watching inside Reform.

The facts are clear: Zia Yusuf called former Defence Secretary Ben Wallace a “traitor” and “moron”. Nigel Farage publicly rebuked him and said the language went too far.

Now there are reports suggesting Yusuf's position within Reform is becoming increasingly difficult.

Those reports aren't independently confirmed, so they should be treated cautiously.

But the wider question is interesting.

Reform has successfully presented itself as a disciplined insurgent party built around a dominant leader. As it tries to become a party capable of government, disagreements over personnel, policy and message become much harder to contain.

The test isn't whether Reform can generate headlines. It is whether it can build an institution capable of surviving internal disagreement.

Watch this one.

[J ANTHONY @JAnthony_Writes]

Stephen Smith’s case is real. And it should be remembered in this debate.

He had COPD, osteoarthritis and other serious conditions, yet was assessed as fit for work and lost his ESA. The decision was eventually overturned.

But there’s an important distinction: Robert Jenrick was a Conservative MP at the time, not the minister responsible for Smith’s assessment.

The bigger question is more important than blaming one politician.

Can Reform design a system that cuts welfare spending dramatically without recreating precisely these kinds of catastrophic assessment failures?

The detail is due on Monday. Let’s see what it actually says before either condemning or celebrating it.

That’s the test.

[dave lawrence 🐟🐟🐠 @dave43law]

The UK democide of the disabled - Reform policy title

Steve should be the poster boy of Reform's disability campaign

"In 2017, just one year after the start of the benefit freeze, Stephen Smith, who suffered from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and osteoarthritis, had his Employment Support Allowance (ESA) payments stopped. A work capability assessment (WCA) found 64-year-old Stephen “fit for work”."

JENRICK WAS PART OF THAT GOVERNMENT

[J ANTHONY @JAnthony_Writes]

You’re arguing with a position I haven’t taken.

I haven’t called for nationalisation. In fact, ownership alone isn’t a solution. The Independent Water Commission found no strong evidence that one ownership model automatically produces better performance.

My argument is much simpler: the current system has failed.

The NAO says the regulators have failed. It also records mains renewal falling to 0.14% when PR19 plans assumed around 0.4%.

Water companies don’t become blameless simply because the regulator also performed badly.

Reform the regulation. Hold the companies accountable. Demand the investment customers are paying for.

That’s not nationalisation. It’s accountability.

[J ANTHONY @JAnthony_Writes]

I’ve launched The Political Brief.

A new home for my writing on British politics, populism, political strategy and the forces reshaping the parties.

Not Labour. Not Conservative. Not Reform.

Analysis over allegiance.

First post:
Welcome to The Political Brief
https://t.co/1TsF5vGYQF

[J ANTHONY @JAnthony_Writes]

This is where populist politics meets the harder test of government.

Trump built an extraordinarily powerful political coalition around identity, grievance and the promise that ordinary people would be better off.

Now 53% of US voters tell the FT they are financially worse off.

Farage has used many of the same political techniques in Britain: simplify the problem, identify who is responsible, dominate the argument and promise disruption.

But winning the argument and improving people’s lives are two very different things.

That’s the central question behind Two Flags, One Playbook.

Populism can be extraordinarily effective at winning power. Governing is where the promises meet reality.

[J ANTHONY @JAnthony_Writes]

“Nobody should receive taxpayers’ money for anxiety” is a slogan, not an argument.

PIP isn’t awarded because somebody tells a doctor they feel anxious.

It is awarded when a long-term condition causes measurable difficulty with everyday activities or mobility, against defined assessment criteria.

Someone with severe panic disorder or agoraphobia who cannot reliably travel alone is not the same thing as somebody feeling nervous before a meeting.

By all means reform a system that isn’t working. Even the Government’s independent review says PIP needs major reform.

But pretending serious mental illness is just “anxiety” so millions of people can be written off is neither serious policy nor serious analysis.

If you want to cut support, make the case against the actual system, not a caricature of the people using it.

[J ANTHONY @JAnthony_Writes]

There is an uncomfortable political question here.

Clacton contains communities with exceptionally high levels of disability and PIP claims.

Yet its MP leads a party proposing one of the biggest reductions in working-age disability support in decades.

That doesn’t automatically make the policy wrong.

But it does mean Clacton deserves to know exactly who would lose support under it.

[J ANTHONY @JAnthony_Writes]

Bureaucracy and regulation are part of the problem. The NAO criticises them too.

But that doesn’t absolve the companies.

During PR19, Ofwat allowed expenditure based on replacing around 0.4% of water mains annually.

The industry actually delivered 0.14%.

Ofwat now estimates a sustainable long-term rate at 0.6–0.8%.

So yes, reform the regulatory system. But “underfunding and bureaucracy, not industry” simply isn’t what the evidence says.

Both have failed. That’s rather the point.