“Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidarity to pure wind” – George Orwell
Throughout history, rulers have sought to justify their decisions to those they govern. For emperors and monarchs, legitimacy often meant simply appeasing the masses to avoid unrest. But with the birth of Athenian democracy in the 5th century BCE, persuasion became essential — policies required public support, not just compliance. Since then, elected officials and political theorists alike have studied how rhetoric shapes opinion and secures power. Language has always been the lifeblood of political engagement. But today, in a landscape flooded with populist sentiment, social media soundbites, and a general distrust in institutions, the language of politics has changed — and with it, so has the way voters respond.
Simplicity wins: The rise of Reform and the fall of nuance
The recent electoral success of Reform UK is a stark reminder of how potent, simple, emotionally charged language can be. In contrast to the defunct Brexit Party — which, though loud, often lacked clarity in purpose post-referendum — Reform has mastered a form of political expression that speaks directly to discontent. Their messaging is deliberately stripped-down: blame, anger, restoration, and nationalism all rolled into accessible, repeatable slogans.
Spurred on by the orange elephant in the room and his grip on the global conversation, the rise of populist movements within nearly all Western democracies is a wake-up call.
Voters are being offered a clear emotional framework. “Britain is Broken, Britain Needs Reform”. It’s reductive, yes. But it’s also powerful.
This simplicity isn’t new, but it has found new potency in a climate where many feel alienated by technocratic language and hollow centrist promises. The Reform movement has exploited a shift in the national mood — a post-austerity, post-pandemic, economically uncertain zeitgeist — where people crave direction, not detail.
Labour's conundrum: Defending the centre from the fringes
With the Conservatives languishing in both polling and purpose, the defense of the political center now rests almost entirely on Labour’s shoulders. And yet, so far, Labour’s response has been muddled. Party infighting over welfare reforms, U-turns over winter fuel allowance and a lack of commitment to a central narrative has severely undermined their credibility on domestic issues with the public.
Rather than defining a compelling alternative vision, the party has instead often tried to meet Reform on its own turf — adopting populist policies on crime, migration, and the economy that echo, rather than counter, the right-wing narrative.
This is a strategic misstep. By mimicking populist rhetoric (“Smash the gangs”), Labour risks legitimising the very worldview it needs to challenge. In trying to sound tougher, more ‘in touch’, or more decisive, the party has confused assertiveness with authenticity.
Labour cannot win the language war by borrowing from those who thrive on outrage. Populists are strongest in the realm of emotional immediacy and reactive slogans. The center-left, historically, has found strength not in echoing discontent but in transforming it into a positive, inclusive vision. Right now, that vision is absent.
This absence can partially be explained by the inexperienced nature of the party’s MPs. Having sat on the opposition benches for the last 15 years, an acclimatisation period for returning to office was expected. Yet the lack of direction and effective strategy in their initial story telling was a failure of leadership, leaving the voter base to assume their tenure was simply a continuation of the Tory disorganisation. When your first stories of the new government are black holes and blame, you’re unlikely to inspire confidence in an economy and a nation.
For a party whose 2024 manifesto cover was an image of Keir Starmer with the word “Change” printed in bold red text, the confusion caused many in the public to view the party as more of the same.
A necessary reset: From defensive to defining
So how should Labour respond? How can they re-inspire their base while tempting back the disaffected red wall that is being captured by the populist, interventionist policies trumpeted by Reform? Is the answer to adopt their own form of powerful simplistic rhetoric or should they instead trust in the power of detail and appeals to logic?
To re-engage voters, especially those flirting with the fringes, Labour must build a narrative that is both emotionally resonant and intellectually honest. This means telling a story of national renewal that doesn’t scapegoat, that doesn’t reduce complex issues to caricatures, and that resists the lure of the quick fix.
The task ahead is not to deny people’s anger — it is to redirect it constructively. To remind them that change can come through stability, that progress can be pragmatic, and that hope is not naïve — it is essential.
Labour stands now not only as the establishment party, but also as the gatekeeper of democratic faith. It must rise to that role not by fighting fire with fire, but by dousing the flames with a vision that brings people in, rather than pushing them further away.
