The government's response to antisemitism lacks joined-up strategy

The Government deserves credit for a number of serious and welcome steps. But there still appears to be a lack of joint-up planning

As Keir Starmer gathers police chiefs, cultural leaders and senior figures in Downing Street this week to confront antisemitism, the urgency is not in question. A series of attacks, including the Golders Green stabbings, multiple arsons and last year’s Manchester synagogue terror attack, has made that clear. But the harder question sits behind the summit: what actually changes?

The Government deserves credit for a number of serious and welcome steps. Ministers have increased funding for Jewish community security, worked closely with CST, launched reviews into antisemitism in schools and universities, and moved quickly to convene leaders across public life. These are meaningful interventions.

But taken together, they still do not amount to a coherent national strategy.

The pattern is now familiar. There is an attack. Police presence increases. Ministers respond. The community is somewhat reassured. Then the visibility fades, another incident follows, and the same question returns: why didn’t you stay?

This is not a failure of intent. It is a failure of structure.

At present, the UK response is fragmented across multiple workstreams: separate reviews into schools and healthcare, evolving university oversight, reactive policing, periodic funding injections, and high-level meetings in Whitehall. Each may be justified. Together, they remain disconnected.

The Government has rightly strengthened funding through CST, and the relationship between CST, police and government is one of the strongest elements of the current system. That partnership should be the backbone of a national response.

But it cannot be the system.

Jewish communal security is increasingly operating as a substitute for a fully joined-up state strategy. If the true cost of securing synagogues, schools and wider community infrastructure is materially higher, with some suggesting in private it could reach £120m for physical building upgrades alone, before even considering ongoing guarding, then that gap needs to be addressed transparently.

At present, visible security is largely concentrated around schools. Many other institutions have little to no consistent on-site protection. That imbalance is difficult to justify in what is clearly a sustained threat environment.

Other countries are moving faster structurally. In Australia, the Government appointed a Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, developed a national plan, and formally adopted it as a whole-of-government response. That approach brings together education, enforcement, online harms, public discourse and community security under a single framework, with clear ownership and accountability.

It is not perfect. But it is joined up.

That is the gap in the UK response.

Britain does not need another isolated review or another reactive deployment. It needs a single, cross-government antisemitism strategy, led from the centre, with communal organisations fully integrated, defined departmental responsibilities, transparent funding, and clear accountability across policing, education and public institutions.

It should answer basic questions. Who owns delivery? What happens after police patrols are deployed? How are schools and universities being held accountable? What is the national security requirement for Jewish sites? What is the funding gap? How is progress measured?

Tuesday’s East London attack, on a former synagogue, caused limited physical damage. But its significance lies elsewhere. It is another reminder that the threat is persistent, not episodic.

The Prime Minister is right to convene. Now the Government needs to connect.