The New Political Insurgents

My thoughts on a new group attempting to transform UK politics

Dr Lawrence Newport (left) and Joe Reeve (right)

Is Westminster about to experience a revolution? This was the question I had spinning in my head as I walked from Mornington Crescent to yet another event in London about growth. These events have become a ubiquitous side-effect of a Britain that seems in consistent decline. Usually they remind me of the part in Monty Python’s Life of Brian where the numerous street prophets are attempting to become the next Jesus, all promising the cornucopia of ‘GROWTH!’ and ‘REJUVENATION!’.

I’ve dipped in and out of conversations about pushing political bounds outside of the main two parties, whether through informal networks, campaigns or new parties, spanning from left to right. But most ideas I hear about supposedly ‘systemic change’ run on the same traditional lines: a large nationalisation here, or a big tax cut there. Nothing bold or innovative – really just fiscal tinkering. And more importantly all these visions utilise the same unreformed Whitehall and Civil Service. The following piece is a collection of thoughts and reactions to what I heard at this event, and why I think you should take note – it's quite clear this group, Looking For Growth (LFG), isn’t just another Monty Python street prophet.

Origins of Disorder

For decades we have had a major issue in politics: the pure talent pool has been drained leading to a series of successively uninspiring and stagnating governments. The most recent, the fourteen years of Conservative rule, was a set of wasted years (cough cough). While there were bright spots, consistent vision and governing competence was practically extinct. And if one is taking a wider view, you should extend the roots of Britain's decline to the New Labour / Thatcher / Major governments which all failed to structurally reform governing machinery for the long-term. In fact, Thatcher melded the system around her, rather than permanently changing it like Gladstone or Lloyd George.

The idea that the ‘great person’ creates change only works when those ‘great’ people are… errr… actually great? This reliance on a single person means the system must contain top talent in order to keep (re)creating competent prime ministers that can dominate Whitehall and the party system for over a decade. But to do this, akin to the chicken and the egg problem, there needs to be a system / movement consistently bringing in elite talent from several different arenas.

If one looks at cycles or consensus theory (the idea that every 40-50 years elite ideology and talent coalesces to break the underlying ‘default’ mechanics / policies of politics) we are due an agenda-changing prime minister about, well, now. One can’t rule out that this could be Keir Starmer. But most at this event have seen enough in the first six months to conclude that more needs to be done than simply hope Labour changes things. And why? Because this is a strikingly dangerous historical moment for our country. On the surface, geopolitical instability is at its greatest in decades, Western nations are straining under the weight of cost of living crisis, sclerotic growth, ageing populations, broken public services and high immigration. Match this with the two existential risks, one of climate change, and the other more pressing of Artificial Intelligence, which both threaten the very existence of humans, and you have a very dangerous moment. It is in the face of these risks that this new project, Looking For Growth, seeks to amass a group of mostly outsider talent looking to change the political system for good.

The New Talent of LFG

A room packed with mostly a few hundred men doesn’t initially seem very appealing. But aesthetics aside, the night threw up some intriguing talents and ideas. Joe Reeve, the techno-optimist organiser who’s gained increasing stature in tech and policy circles, was first up on the need to build movements and organise – his slogan of ‘just fucking build something’ a striking slogan of the Silicon Valley / Venture Capital vibe. In fact, not just because of the younger audience and high concentration of nerds, the event had a Silicon Valley feel – purple neon lights, beers, swearing, the odd sprinkling of awkwardness and a sense that there were some very non-political people in the room suddenly listening. Everyone has seen Musk’s capture of Washington, backed by Silicon Valley. Within this context there is a growing feeling, as there was in this room, that something similar could happen in Britain.

Next up was what seems the informal / de facto leader of the Looking for Growth team, Dr Lawrence Newport, notable for pushing Whitehall to ban the XL Bully in just 77 days. And if there was one highlight of the event it was Newport – unveiling a ready-made bill that promised to bypass planning laws to build desperately needed power connectors, data centers and nuclear plants (vibing off the success of Notre Dame’s accelerated build time). I can’t think of an event I’ve attended that has published a workable bill that could become law tomorrow.

~However, it was his communication skills that were seriously impressive. Now, it was a home crowd – these were his people, which could have contributed to this. But, regardless, the clarity in which he spoke would show up most in UK politics. And this is the crux of Looking for Growth – their message is clear – just build something. In this clarity one doesn’t need to get bogged down in inter-party factions or a Civil Service designed to obstruct a process. The language and political strategy leads to a clear goal: growth. The barrier? A lack of political / technical talent and a system that blocks growth at every corner. The deeper question which LFG now embarks on is how to break down this barrier?

Enter: Marc Warner and Dominic Cummings

The eminent stars of the evening were Marc Warner, CEO and co-founder of Faculty AI and previously working in No.10, and Dominic Cummings, Vote Leave leader / ex-No.10 Chief Advisor now intent on once again shifting the political system. Their conversation was absorbing, Warner sharing insights of the terrible procurement system which every time one hears a horror story it is hard to think that there is anyone competent involved in the process. But Warner’s most interesting point was on the level of risk posed by Artificial Intelligence – not just the grand-scale job displacement already starting to occur – but what level of danger AI poses to the human race. Some of you reading may be versed in x-risk or p(doom) discussion around AI. But for those that aren’t, or don’t care (though you really should), Nate Silver’s recent development of a scale to compare the technological-historical impact of AI to other developments brings clarity. His ‘Tech Richter Scale’ essentially has each technological development ranked, and like the Richeter scale for an earthquake, each level has 10x more impact than the previous level. Warner said he could see AI being comparable to the big bang and establishment of the holocene, or a level 10 ‘epochal’ moment in Silver’s scale. It's these technological moments that adds, and arguably requires, injections of political radicalism to change and survive.

Silver’s TRS

After Warner exited the stage it was left for, well who else, than Cummings. From here it was the classic Cummings pitch – on both our broken politics, the structural instability of our system comparable to that of the 1830s/40s and the need to ‘blow-up’ the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms. Regardless if one disagrees with some or most of his viewpoints, he remains the most dynamic political mover in SW1. His mantra ‘the government doesn’t run the government’ is the Kafkian rallying cry for a disillusioned generation of young politicos. I won’t go over his usual points as many will have read his blog where he explains them in full. But it was Cummings' later half message which was most intriguing. Not only did he see 2024 as a moment similar to the 1910s/20s where the British system split into four parties, leading to the death of the Liberals and birth of the insurgent Labour party, but that he will actively attempt to bring this about.

Many have heard of his vision for a ‘Startup Party’ to capture the electoral system – something he said would be built in 2025/6. Recruiting top elite talent and building this is his project for the next couple of years – and he was evidently in the right place to pitch this – a room full of techno-political elites looking for change. The big puzzle remains how one can kill Reform, the on-trend insurgents lapping up the money, and then form a government by 2029. Without recruiting top talent from a cross-section of industries and varying politicos, it will be impossible. But it was at this point I wondered (rather cynically) – was this event really just for Looking For Growth or was it designed, on purpose, to coalesce a wider elite talent to build a new political movement? Is Cummings attempting to amalgamate LFG and its people much like Business For Britain did so in the run up to Vote Leave? We’ll have to see.

Cynical thoughts aside, there are few strategic impediments LFG need to tackle. First, to what extent can one exert legislative pressure without legislative presence? I know this sounds simple, but will emails and letters to MPs / Ministers be enough to get their Infrastructure bill adopted by the government? Probably not. One can build the movement over the next few years to wider policy / elite circles but can it exist purely as an elite pressure network? If so, this is where the second problem lies. The group, currently, is politically too niche to achieve its fundamental role of changing government policy. At the beginning of this government cycle there is an opportunity to entice young, centre / centre-left talent looking to work for Labour away and fundamentally break their recruitment process. This would also build a movement that is genuinely cross-ideological. If one wants to start convincing governing Labour insiders and Civil Servants you will need the best of those people onside. Essentially, you will need converts and fixers – and importantly those willing to do the leg work on this.

This leads to my final point – it seems that if one can gather enough technical and political talent should you not just go the full way? Similarly, if you believe the system is fundamentally broken, from Civil Servants to MPs to the media-hegemony, you should probably just build your own foundational blocks of a new system. The moment is ripe and the room, after all, was full of people either running startups or appreciative of their dynamism. But for now it's understandable why LFG’s goals remain more piecemeal, for now.

The Future

After leaving the event I came away with a simple conclusion: it's possible their political diagnosis, proposed actions, message and willing talent could shift our politics. What comes next remains unknown. It is now the ‘how’ that needs to be solved in their search for growth. After the news this morning that the economy surprisingly shrunk for a second month in a row, their message seems as pertinent as ever. Remember their names, they may just change politics in the not too distant future.

Tom Egerton is a political writer and strategist, his latest book The Conservative Effect: 14 Wasted Years? (CUP) can be ordered here: with Cambridge, Waterstones or Amazon. Follow Tom on X / Twitter here.