Policy & Research

Other parties put out policy department by department. A member argued we should do the opposite: every policy feeds into a web, so when one changes, we check the knock-on effects on all the others, all the way up to one governing idea. Then you can point all of it at one region and see it work.

I agree. The data layer underneath research and policy is a type of database called a ‘knowledge graph’. The key difference between a knowledge graph and a SQL database is that it’s much easier to record the relationships between different records. We’ll work on making sure this is clearer and better expressed in next week’s surgery on Party Operations, where we’ll expand on how tech/AI can help us work and grow faster, as well as the more human side of things.

A member asked why we’d put so much work into an excellent green paper and then not adopt it. And voters reading it on our website won’t know the difference.

Green papers should be free to be expansive and provocative. Some are written as if we start from a blank sheet, with a ten-year target. Policy work then asks: what are the best ideas here, what is realistic, and what fits political reality? If you let people push at the edges, you can find something really innovative.

The fair challenge is how it’s communicated. A discussion paper has to look and read like one. And a better process helps: a group of experts agrees the problem, one person goes off and writes it (a group can’t write a green paper), and the same group reviews it before it goes out.

One member liked the bottom-up approach but asked how it fits with the branding and messaging work, and whether the leader would steer research.

The Policy Governance Board keeps its role: deciding which areas we focus on, in what order, and keeping policy consistent. To make those decisions, the Board will need to read signals from all directions - members, campaigns, political events, geopolitical shifts, data analysis etc.

We’ll also need to review feedback we get from communications we put out. However, I don’t think messaging should drive policy. Otherwise we end up like the other parties, putting out policy purely to woo a specific vote bloc. But we should understand what people are most worried about, from campaigns and comms as well as research, and hear how they talk about it. It’s just one of the signals, not the only one.

Members pointed out that the big parties lean heavily on think tanks, and asked about peer review and expert policy leads.

I’ve already spoken with a couple of think tanks. Where one has the right outlook, it makes sense to get their input, especially where the party lacks expertise. Internally, every paper should be checked before it’s published, and that includes people outside the subject asking awkward questions. That’s support for the people writing them, not a judgement on them.

A member made the point that most voters don’t want detailed policy. They’re busy. They respond when you say clearly what’s wrong. That’s diagnosis, and it has to be intelligent, not just angry.

So every new policy gets broken down straight away. Nationally: the costed paper on the website, social posts, video scripts and lines to take for spokespeople. Regionally: a version for each region, because policy lands differently in different places. Locally: candidate packs tailored to the seat, and ideas for action days. AI is good at pulling the key messages out of a 40-page paper. It is bad at writing copy, so people write the copy.

Parties that cut through own something. Reform owns immigration: they posted about it in 21 of the 27 weeks I looked at on X. We talked about the economy (based on Investment State) in 14, often lightly. To own a topic, people have to care, feel it and see it; there’s usually a villain; and it has to be credible and simple.

Members put forward:

• Housing: we back social house-building as an investment, not as welfare. Young people can’t get on the ladder, and that links to the falling birth rate.
• Immigration, done differently: many Reform and Restore voters are holding their nose to vote for a party that will fix the biggest, most painful issue in the country. We can be as serious about fixing it, and calmer about how we say it. Tough but tender.
• Training and skills: employers can’t find trained people (an issue raised since the 1820s). A British trade qualification should be a trusted mark of quality. One member suggested making master of a trade an honour on a par with a knighthood.
• Cleaning up politics: one member’s pitch is a new funding model for parties, a cap on individual donations, and no gifts for anyone in public office. It deserves a proper hearing.
• Stewardship: the Greens have left a gap on the environment. Reindustrialisation doesn’t have to mean dark satanic mills: we can build homes and industry and still care for nature.
• Cost of living, as a way in to our positions on housing, energy and some public ownership.
• Economic zones that bring housing and manufacturing together in one place.
• Reindustrialisation: why industry matters is the SDP’s core strength. One member urged reissuing The End of Indifference as the vision that pulls our policy together.
• AI: it will transform society and is already changing how education and training work. One member was torn on making it a top issue: many people are learning to live with it, and many older voters barely use the tech.

By the end, most of us were landing in the same place. One topic may not be enough for a party our size in a crowded field. The Greens show how it works: one big story (billionaires) with climate, bills and renting underneath.

Members suggested resilience, linking energy, food, water, sovereignty and defence. Another said we already have the vision in William’s End of Indifference video, and should reshoot it with our new leader. I’d add AI to it. My own early thought is that we are the 21st-century option and the others are legacy parties.

I’m not going to spring an answer on anyone now. In the first month, alongside the communications project, I’ll bring together people from the party to work this out properly, and then test it with the public.

One of our youngest members told us their generation want an economy that works for them and a voice that listens. Many are drawn to Reform and Restore. Another member said young people are put off by the idea of reindustrialisation but care a lot about the environment.

Young people aren’t some unreachable species. They have different tastes in how they’re spoken to, but they want the same things everyone does. Talk to them about what matters to them, in places they are: universities, schools and TikTok more than X. Housing, jobs, reindustrialisation and adapting to AI are how they’re living through this, so those are the pillars to build on.