Blue Labour, Red MAGA: How Maurice Glasman Became Starmer's Trojan Horse
In the grand theatre of political realignment that has defined the 2020s, few figures embody the strange new alliances and ideological cross-pollinations of our time quite like Lord Maurice Glasman. The 63-year-old Labour peer, academic, and founder of the Blue Labour movement has achieved something that would have seemed impossible just a decade ago: he has become the only Labour parliamentarian personally invited to Donald Trump's presidential inauguration by JD Vance (Evening Standard, 2025), earned the admiration of Steve Bannon, and provided intellectual scaffolding for the Vice President's political worldview. All this, while remaining a sitting member of the House of Lords for the Labour Party.
This is the story of how a political theorist from Walthamstow became what UnHerd has dubbed "Labour's MAGA Lord," and what his unlikely journey tells us about the profound political realignments reshaping democracy on both sides of the Atlantic (UnHerd, 2025). Through his growing influence via Morgan McSweeney, Starmer's Chief of Staff, Glasman has become the intellectual architect of Labour's transformation from a progressive party into something that increasingly resembles its populist opponents.
What is Blue Labour?
To understand Maurice Glasman's influence on contemporary British politics, it is essential to grasp what Blue Labour represents as a political movement. Founded by Glasman in 2009 during the dying days of Gordon Brown's government, Blue Labour emerged as a radical critique of the direction the Labour Party had taken since the 1990s.
Blue Labour's core philosophy can be summarised as socially conservative but economically leftist; a combination that would prove prophetic in understanding the political realignments of the 2010s and 2020s. The movement explicitly rejected the progressive liberalism that had come to dominate New Labour, arguing instead for a return to the party's earlier traditions of community solidarity, mutual aid, and ethical socialism—a core component of Blue Labour's philosophy (Rutherford, 2019)
Blue Labour's emphasis on faith, family, and flag captures its essential character. Blue Labour advocates for the importance of religious belief in public life, the centrality of traditional family structures, and a patriotic attachment to national identity. These culturally conservative positions are combined with economically interventionist policies: support for trade unions, scepticism toward free markets, and advocacy for policies that protect working-class jobs and communities.
On immigration, Blue Labour takes a restrictionist stance, arguing that mass immigration has undermined working-class wages and social cohesion. The movement calls for dramatically reduced immigration levels and prioritises the interests of existing communities over multicultural diversity. This position, controversial within the Labour Party, has become increasingly influential as concerns about immigration have grown among traditional Labour voters.
Blue Labour also advocates for community organising and what it calls 'relational politics'—an approach that emphasises face-to-face relationships, local institutions, and grassroots democracy over technocratic governance (Pabst, 2015). The movement is deeply doubtful of both market fundamentalism and state bureaucracy, preferring instead solutions rooted in civil society and community action.
What makes Blue Labour particularly significant in contemporary politics is how its analysis anticipated the populist revolts that would later sweep across Western democracies. Years before Trump's election or Brexit, Blue Labour was arguing that progressive parties had lost touch with their working-class base by embracing globalisation, multiculturalism, and technocratic governance while ignoring the social and economic disruption these changes caused in traditional communities.
This prescient analysis has given Blue Labour enormous influence within the Labour Party, particularly as the party has struggled to respond to electoral challenges from both the Conservative Party and Reform UK. Blue Labour's argument that only a return to culturally conservative, economically populist politics can win back working-class voters has become increasingly attractive to Labour strategists, desperate to halt the party's decline in its traditional heartlands.
Who is Maurice Glasman? The Making of a Political Maverick
The seeds of Maurice Glasman's transformation into what UnHerd has called "Labour's MAGA Lord" were planted decades before Donald Trump descended his golden escalator (UnHerd, 2025). To understand how a working-class kid from Walthamstow became the intellectual bridge between British socialism and American populism, we must trace a journey that began in the dying days of the post-war consensus and culminated in the most unlikely political alliance of our time.
Born in March 1961, Glasman came of age during the tumultuous 1970s, when Britain seemed to be falling apart. The three-day week, the Winter of Discontent, and the rise of the National Front formed the backdrop to his early political awakening. Unlike the middle-class radicals who would later dominate New Labour, Glasman's politics were forged in the reality of working-class life; the understanding that politics wasn't an abstract intellectual exercise but a matter of survival for communities under siege.
His early political formation was shaped by the traditional concerns of the British left: community organising, workers' rights, and social solidarity. He joined the Labour Party in the 1970s, but even then, he was never a conventional Labour politician. His academic background in political theory at London Metropolitan University, combined with his work as a community organiser with London Citizens, gave him something rare in British politics: direct contact with working-class communities whose concerns many Labour politicians, increasingly drawn from professional backgrounds, simply did not understand.
The intellectual foundations of what would become Blue Labour were laid during years of academic research that focused on the limits of free-market capitalism and the importance of community solidarity. But this wasn't ivory tower theorising. Glasman was simultaneously working on the ground in East London, organising communities against loan sharks, fighting for living wages, and confronting the British National Party in areas where Labour had effectively abandoned its traditional voters.
In 2009, as Gordon Brown's government struggled with the aftermath of the financial crisis, Glasman founded the Blue Labour movement with a manifesto that would prove prophetic. His diagnosis was radical: Labour had become a technocratic machine that spoke the language of rights and procedures but had lost touch with the values and concerns that had originally motivated working-class political organisation.
Most importantly, it positioned itself as the authentic voice of working-class concerns against the progressive liberalism that had come to dominate the Labour Party.
What made Glasman dangerous, and what would later make him attractive to figures like JD Vance and Steve Bannon, was that his critique of progressive liberalism was not coming from the traditional right. This was a Labour peer, a community organiser, someone with impeccable left-wing credentials arguing that the left had fundamentally lost its way. When similar critiques began emerging from very different political quarters across the Atlantic, the stage was set for the unlikely alliances that would follow.
Maurice Glasman and Trump: An Unlikely Alliance
The transformation of Maurice Glasman from Labour maverick to “MAGA Lord" began with an intellectual connection that would have seemed impossible in an earlier era (UnHerd, 2025). The bridge between Blue Labour and the Trump movement was built through JD Vance, now Vice President of the United States, who discovered in Glasman's work a sophisticated analysis of working-class alienation that Democrats had failed to grasp.
Vance, author of the 2016 book, Hillbilly Elegy, and a keen observer of American working-class culture, recognised in Blue Labour a political framework that could explain Trump's appeal to voters who had traditionally supported the Democratic Party. Glasman's critique of progressive liberalism - that it had abandoned working-class communities in favour of abstract rights and technocratic solutions - resonated powerfully with Vance's own analysis of American political dysfunction.
The personal relationship between Glasman and Vance developed over time, built on shared intellectual interests and a common diagnosis of the failures of centre-left politics. When Trump returned to the presidency in January 2025, it was Vance who ensured that Glasman received a personal invitation to the inauguration, making him the only Labour parliamentarian to be so honoured. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and the UK's incoming ambassador to the US, Peter Mandelson, were notably excluded from the guest list (Evening Standard, 2025).
Glasman's connection to the Trump movement extends far beyond his relationship with Vance. Multiple sources confirm that he has appeared on Steve Bannon's ‘War Room’ podcast, where he has made controversial statements about progressive politics (Labour List, 2025). According to the London Review of Books, in January 2025 Glasman told Bannon's podcast that progressives are "the enemy...because they actually despise faith, they despise family, they despise love" (Geoghegan, 2025).
The McSweeney Connection: Blue Labour's Pipeline to Power
The institutional mechanism for Blue Labour's influence is Morgan McSweeney, Starmer's Chief of Staff, whose role as the bridge between Blue Labour and Downing Street cannot be overstated. McSweeney is not merely sympathetic to Blue Labour ideas. He is, in Glasman's words, "one of ours," a true believer who has maintained close ties to the movement since his days fighting the BNP in Barking and Dagenham (The Observer, 2025).
McSweeney's daily contact with Blue Labour activists represents a direct pipeline from Glasman's intellectual framework to government policy (The Observer, 2025). This systematic, ongoing influence shapes how the government approaches fundamental questions of immigration, community cohesion, and cultural policy. The relationship between Glasman's group and Downing Street is described as "very real," with regular meetings at Number 10 focusing on issues that Blue Labour has made central to its agenda (The Observer, 2025).
The significance of McSweeney's role extends far beyond personal relationships. As Chief of Staff, he controls access to the Prime Minister and shapes the flow of information and advice that reaches Starmer. When Blue Labour activists have daily contact with McSweeney, they effectively have daily contact with the nerve centre of British government. This institutional arrangement ensures that Blue Labour's perspective is not just heard but actively incorporated into government thinking.
The government's reported efforts to forge a ‘new left’ for a ‘new age’ place Blue Labour ideas at the centre of Labour's ideological reconstruction (The Observer, 2025). This represents not a fundamental reorientation of Labour's political identity away from progressive liberalism and toward the cultural conservatism that Blue Labour champions.
The McSweeney connection also explains why Blue Labour's influence appears to be growing rather than diminishing despite Glasman's increasingly extreme positions. Traditional political logic would suggest that a Labour peer's attendance at Trump's inauguration and praise for MAGA rallies would marginalise him within the party. Instead, Blue Labour's influence continues to expand because McSweeney ensures that their ideas reach the highest levels of government regardless of the controversy surrounding their most prominent spokesperson.
But this strategy reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the threat facing British democracy. By legitimising and amplifying voices like Glasman's, Starmer is not neutralising the far right. Rather, he is normalising it. He is accepting the premise that the only way to compete with authoritarianism is to adopt authoritarian rhetoric and policies. This is political capitulation that transforms Labour from Reform's opponent into its pale imitation.
The Systematic Destruction of Corbyn: Blue Labour's Long Game
What has been revealed through investigative journalism is nothing short of extraordinary: a coordinated campaign by Blue Labour-aligned figures to systematically undermine Jeremy Corbyn and install a more compliant leader who would be receptive to their influence. This operation, described by journalists Gabriel Pogrund and Patrick Maguire as "a plot without precedent in Labour history," demonstrates the sophisticated nature of Blue Labour's institutional strategy (Sanders, 2025).
The formal foundation for this campaign was Labour Together, an organisation founded in June 2015 by John Clarke, a former Blue Labour director (Labour Together, 2025). While Labour Together presented itself as a think tank focused on electoral strategy, it functioned as the operational headquarters for a systematic campaign to destroy Corbyn's leadership and install a successor who would be more amenable to Blue Labour influence.
Under Morgan McSweeney's direction from 2017, Labour Together worked to "use any means necessary to delegitimise and destroy" Jeremy Corbyn, with the explicit goal to "ensure he lost badly" and restore the right to power (Sanders, 2025). The operation's guiding principle was stark: "The imperative: don't get caught" (Sanders, 2025). This was systematic, internal sabotage designed to make Corbyn's leadership untenable and clear the path for a successor who would be more amenable to Blue Labour influence.
The methods employed were sophisticated and ruthless. McSweeney and his allies devoted enormous resources to scouring pro-Corbyn Facebook groups for incriminating posts, ensuring "the most disturbing examples found their way to the Sunday Times" where they were published under headlines like "Exposed: Jeremy Corbyn's Hate Factory" (Sanders, 2025). They secretly recruited public figures like Rachel Riley to front campaigns targeting pro-Corbyn media outlets with claims of antisemitism, successfully destroying The Canary website which "went down from 22 staff to one member of staff within a few months" (Sanders, 2025).
Perhaps most revealing, McSweeney "secretly organised hecklers to disrupt Corbyn's speeches," creating the impression of grassroots opposition while actually orchestrating manufactured dissent (Sanders, 2025). The operation was funded through undeclared donations from hedge fund managers and other wealthy interests who saw Corbyn as a threat to their economic interests.
The systematic nature of this campaign cannot be overstated. This was not ordinary political opposition but a coordinated effort to wholly destroy a democratically elected leader through deception, manipulation, and sabotage. The fact that it was organised by figures with close ties to Blue Labour demonstrates the movement's willingness to use any route to achieve political power.
Installing Starmer: The Culmination of Blue Labour Strategy
The success of the anti-Corbyn campaign created the conditions for the second phase of Blue Labour's strategy: installing a leader who would be receptive to their influence. McSweeney spent hundreds of thousands of pounds on polling and focus groups to identify the candidate most likely to defeat the left and restore the right to power within the Labour Party (Sanders, 2025).
The candidate they identified was Keir Starmer, a figure who combined establishment credentials with the ability to appeal to Corbyn supporters through carefully crafted campaign promises. McSweeney "handpicked" Starmer as the leadership candidate and orchestrated a campaign based on what has been described as "the great deception" (Sanders, 2025).
Starmer's leadership campaign was built on a series of pledges that directly contradicted the policies he would later implement as leader. He promised to maintain Corbyn's economic policies, defend free movement within Europe, and uphold the party's commitment to public ownership. These pledges were designed to win over Corbyn supporters while concealing Starmer's true intentions.
The deception was systematic and deliberate. Starmer's campaign team, led by figures with close ties to Blue Labour, knew that he had no intention of implementing the policies he was promising. The goal was simply to win the leadership contest, then abandon the pledges once in power.
The success of this strategy demonstrates the sophisticated nature of Blue Labour's institutional capture of the Labour Party. This was systematic deception designed to install a compliant leader who would be receptive to Blue Labour influence. The fact that Glasman can now boast that McSweeney "is one of ours" reveals the extent to which this strategy has succeeded (The New Statesman, 2025).
How Keir Starmer Courts Blue Labour
The relationship between Keir Starmer and Blue Labour is a calculated political strategy designed to neutralise the electoral threat posed by Reform UK while maintaining Labour's position as the primary alternative to Conservative government.
This shift is visible in Starmer's increasingly "Blue Labourish" statements about immigration, such as his declaration that "Progressive liberals have been too relaxed about not listening to people about the impact of it" (The New Statesman, 2025). This language directly echoes Blue Labour talking points and represents a significant departure from Labour's traditional approach to immigration policy.
The strategic logic behind this courtship is clear: Reform UK's electoral success has created a crisis for Labour in its traditional working-class heartlands. Blue Labour offers Starmer a framework for appealing to these voters without completely abandoning Labour's progressive base. By adopting Blue Labour's culturally conservative rhetoric while maintaining some progressive policies, Starmer hopes to create a coalition broad enough to win elections.
But this strategy comes with significant costs. By legitimising Blue Labour's critique of progressive politics, Starmer has moved the entire political conversation rightward. The debate is no longer between progressive and conservative visions of society, but between different degrees of cultural conservatism. This represents a fundamental victory for Blue Labour's strategy of moving the Overton window in their preferred direction.
How Reform UK Benefits Blue Labour: The Electoral Mathematics
The rise of Reform UK has proven to be an unexpected boon for Blue Labour, transforming what was once a marginal movement within the Labour Party into an indispensable strategic asset. Reform's electoral success - winning five seats and 14% of the vote in 2024, with polling suggesting continued growth - has created exactly the political crisis that Blue Labour needed to position itself as Labour's salvation.
The mathematics are stark and politically devastating for Labour. In a political environment where 8% of Labour's 2024 voters have already defected to Reform, and where Reform poses a direct threat to Labour's working-class base, Blue Labour can credibly claim to offer "the party's only genuine hope of countering the threat of Farage" (The Observer, 2025). This electoral reality gives Blue Labour enormous leverage within the party, allowing them to present their socially conservative agenda not as ideological preference but as electoral necessity.
Reform's success has effectively made Blue Labour indispensable to Starmer's political survival. Every Reform gain in the polls strengthens Blue Labour's argument that only their approach can win back the working-class voters who have abandoned Labour for Farage's populist message. This dynamic explains why Blue Labour voices like Glasman now enjoy unprecedented access to power despite (or perhaps because of) their alignment with Trump's movement.
The strategic brilliance of Blue Labour's position is that Reform's very existence validates their critique of mainstream Labour politics. When Reform wins working-class votes by attacking immigration and multiculturalism, Blue Labour can argue that they predicted this backlash and offer themselves as the solution.
But this reveals the most insidious aspect of Blue Labour's strategy: they do not actually oppose Reform's agenda. They simply propose to implement it more competently. On immigration, the debate becomes who can deport the most people most efficiently. On diversity and inclusion, the question becomes who will go furthest to eliminate these programs. Blue Labour has successfully moved the entire political conversation rightward, ensuring that only conservative solutions to conservative problems are considered legitimate.
This represents a fundamental corruption of democratic debate. Instead of offering voters a choice between different visions of society, for example, one that embraces diversity and international cooperation versus one that prioritises cultural homogeneity and national isolation, Blue Labour ensures that voters can only choose between different degrees of the same nationalist agenda. The result is that Reform's most extreme positions become the starting point for political discussion rather than its outer limit.
Blue Labour's Anti-DEI Agenda: The Latest Salvo
The most recent example of Blue Labour's influence came in June 2025 with their manifesto ‘What is to be Done?’ which calls for the government to "legislate to root out DEI in hiring practices, sentencing decisions, and wherever else we find it in our public bodies" (Blue Labour, 2025). Published just months after Trump's inauguration, where Glasman was an honoured guest, the manifesto reads like a direct import of American culture war politics into the British context.
The Guardian noted that it "echoes the right-wing backlash from Donald Trump and Nigel Farage," explicitly connecting Blue Labour's agenda to international authoritarian populism (Guardian, 2025). The DEI intervention perfectly illustrates how Blue Labour has corrupted democratic debate by ensuring that only right-wing solutions are considered legitimate. The question is no longer whether DEI is valuable, but rather who will go furthest to eliminate it.
The manifesto also calls for "drastically reducing immigration" and "prioritising domestic democratic politics over the rule of international lawyers," language that could have been lifted directly from Reform UK's platform (Blue Labour, 2025). This convergence reflects Blue Labour's strategic decision to position itself as the more competent implementer of the populist agenda rather than its opponent.
Enabling Extremism: How Intellectual Respectability Serves Authoritarian Movements
While Glasman's diagnosis of liberal democracy's failures contains important insights, his response, providing intellectual cover for Trump's authoritarian movement, represents something more dangerous than crude populism. Glasman has become a crucial enabler who legitimises extremism by wrapping it in sophisticated theoretical frameworks and academic respectability.
The mechanism by which this works is subtle but powerful. Glasman's academic credentials and Labour Party membership allow him to present authoritarian ideas as reasonable responses to legitimate grievances. When he describes Trump's movement as a "multi-ethnic, interfaith, working-class coalition," he is providing intellectual cover for a movement that most observers recognise as fundamentally authoritarian (Jones and Klemperer, 2025).
This intellectual respectability serves several crucial functions for authoritarian movements. First, it allows supporters to maintain their self-image as reasonable, thoughtful people rather than extremists. Second, it provides sophisticated arguments that can be used to justify positions that would otherwise seem indefensible. Third, it creates confusion among potential opponents by blurring the lines between legitimate criticism and extremist ideology.
Glasman's theoretical framework transforms political disagreement into existential warfare by arguing that progressives are not simply wrong but actively hostile to fundamental human values. This is not the normal language of democratic debate. Once this framework is accepted, compromise becomes impossible, and moderation becomes collaboration with evil.
Glasman's story serves as a warning about the seductive power of intellectual sophistication when it is not grounded in democratic values. His ability to cite political theory and historical precedent while advocating for authoritarian solutions makes him more dangerous than crude populists who lack his intellectual credentials. Democracy is not only threatened only by uninformed people, but also threatened by sophisticated intellectuals who provide respectable justifications for extremist politics.
The Implications for British Democracy
Glasman's influence within the Labour Party, channelled through his relationship with Morgan McSweeney and his regular meetings with government officials, means that authoritarian ideas are being normalised at the highest levels of British politics.
This normalisation process is already visible in the government's rhetoric and policy direction. Starmer's increasingly harsh language about immigration, his embrace of ‘Blue Labourish’ talking points, and his government's focus on appealing to Reform voters all reflect the influence of Glasman's political framework.
The danger is not that Britain will immediately become an authoritarian state, but that the boundaries of acceptable political discourse will continue to shift in an authoritarian direction. When mainstream politicians adopt the language and logic of extremist movements, they create space for even more extreme voices to enter the political mainstream.
This process is already underway. Reform UK's electoral gains, which Blue Labour celebrates as validation of their analysis, represent the emergence of a genuinely far-right force in British politics. The fact that mainstream Labour politicians now speak the language of cultural conservatism and immigration restriction makes it easier for Reform to present even more extreme positions as reasonable.
The ultimate irony of Glasman's journey is that his efforts to save democracy from what we believes is progressive excess may end up destroying democracy altogether. By providing intellectual respectability for right wing ideas, he has helped create the conditions for the very extremism he claims to oppose.
Conclusion
Maurice Glasman's transformation from Labour activist to what UnHerd has dubbed "Labour's MAGA Lord" is a symptom of deeper currents that threaten to reshape British politics in ways that could fundamentally alter the nature of our democracy (UnHerd, 2025). His journey from community organiser to Trump inauguration guest illuminates how populist ideas cross national boundaries and infiltrate traditional left-wing politics through sophisticated networks of influence and institutional capture.
The story of Blue Labour's systematic campaign to destroy Jeremy Corbyn and install Keir Starmer reveals the extent to which democratic processes can be subverted by well-organised factions willing to use any means necessary to achieve their goals. The fact that this campaign was successful, and that its architects now occupy positions of power within the government, demonstrates how vulnerable democratic institutions are to coordinated assault from within.
Glasman's current influence on government policy through his relationship with Morgan McSweeney shows how Blue Labour's influence on Keir Starmer's government helps explain Labour's marked rightward shift on immigration, cultural issues, and its approach to Reform UK's electoral challenge. The recent publication of Blue Labour's anti-DEI manifesto, echoing Trump's own policies, provides concrete evidence of how transatlantic networks of authoritarian populism operate to normalise extreme positions through respectable political channels.
As Britain faces the challenge of Reform UK's continued growth and the normalisation of far-right politics, the example of Maurice Glasman reminds us that democracy's greatest threats often come not from obvious enemies but from those who claim to be its saviours. The corruption of democratic politics happens through the gradual erosion of democratic norms and the systematic capture of democratic institutions by anti-democratic forces.
The question facing British democracy is whether it can resist these pressures and rebuild the social solidarity and economic equality that make democratic politics possible, or whether it will continue down the path that Glasman has helped to chart: toward a politics of cultural resentment and Right wing solutions.
If you value this kind of writing, please consider subscribing to Plague Island.
We don’t hide our work behind a paywall, because we want it to be read. But if you can support it, we’ll use that support to keep writing more, and writing better.
Paid subscribers receive early access, behind-the-scenes newsletters, and the chance to shape future essays.
We write with rigour, we cite everything, and we answer only to our readers.
Or please support us with a one-off tip → Buy Me a Coffee
References
APH Clarkson (2024) 'Where Curtis Yarvin meets Maurice Glasman', Twitter/X, 25 November 2024. Available at: https://x.com/APHClarkson/status/1929544736181735674 [Accessed: 14 April 2025.]
Bannon, S. (2025) ‘Baron Glasman Breaks Down the History of The Labour Party in The United Kingdom.’ Bannons War Room Podcast, 21 January. Available at: https://rumble.com/v6c0aw1-baron-glasman-breaks-down-the-history-of-the-labour-party-in-the-united-kin.html [Accessed: 8 June 2025.]
Blue Labour (2025) 'What is to be Done?', Blue Labour, 22 April. Available at: https://www.bluelabour.org/home/what-is-to-be-done [Accessed: 4 June 2025.]
Compact Magazine (2025) 'Keir Starmer's Choice', Compact Magazine, 24 May. Available at: https://www.compactmag.com/article/keir-starmers-choice/ (Accessed: April 2025).
Cruddas, J., Rutherford, J., and Glasman, M. (2011) 'The Labour Tradition and the Politics of Paradox', in Glasman, M. et al. (eds.) The Labour Tradition and the Politics of Paradox. London: Lawrence & Wishart, pp. 15-37.
Davis, R. (2011) Tangled Up in Blue: Blue Labour and the Struggle for Labour's Soul. London: Ruskin Publishing.
Evening Standard (2025) 'Lord Maurice Glasman to attend Trump inauguration as only Labour peer invited', Evening Standard, 20 January 2025. Available at: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/lord-maurice-glasman-inauguration-donald-trump-labour-party-b1205927.html [Accessed: 15 April 2025.]
Glasman, M. (2011) 'Labour as a Radical Tradition', in Glasman, M. et al. (eds.) The Labour Tradition and the Politics of Paradox. London: Lawrence & Wishart, pp. 14-34.
Geoghegan, P. (2025) 'Making Media Great Again', London Review of Books, Vol. 47 No. 4, 6 March 2025.
The Guardian (2025) 'Blue Labour group urges ministers to "root out DEI" to win over Reform voters', The Guardian, 2 June. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jun/02/blue-labour-group-urges-ministers-root-out-dei-win-over-reform-voters [Accessed: 4 June 2025.]
Jones, M. and Klemperer, D. (2025) 'Maurice Glasman rails at progressives - why keep treating him as one of us?', Labour List, 21 February. Available at: https://labourlist.org/2025/02/maurice-glasman-progressives-labour-peer/(Accessed: 7 June 2025.]
Maguire, P. and Pogrund, G. (2025) Get In: The Inside Story of Labour Under Starmer. London: Penguin Random House.
The New Statesman (2025) 'The battle for Labour's soul', The New Statesman, February 2025. Available at: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/labour/2025/02/the-battle-for-labours-soul [Accessed: 14 April 2025.]
The Observer (2025) 'Labour's Trump Card', The Observer, 2025. Available at: https://observer.co.uk/news/politics/article/labours-trump-card [Accessed: 15 April 2025.]
Pabst, A. (2015) 'Conclusion: Blue Labour - Principles, Policy Ideas and Prospects', The Labour Tradition and the Politics of Paradox. Available at: https://kar.kent.ac.uk/47558/1/Adrian%20Pabst%20-%20Conclusion%20-%20Blue%20Labour%20Principles%20Policy%20Ideas%20and%20Prospects.pdf [Accessed: 8 June 2025.]
Rutherford, J. (2019) 'In Defence of Blue Labour', Political Quarterly, 11 December. Available at: https://politicalquarterly.org.uk/blog/in-defence-of-blue-labour/ [Accessed: 8 June 2025.]
Sanders, R. (2025) 'Morgan McSweeney's plot without precedent in Labour history', Declassified UK, 24 April. Available at: https://www.declassifieduk.org/morgan-mcsweeney-plot-without-precedent-in-labour-history/ [Accessed: 4 June 2025.]
UnHerd (2025) 'Labour's MAGA Lord', UnHerd, 6 March. Available at: https://unherd.com/us/watch-listen/labours-maga-lord/ [Accessed: 7 June 2025.]