“The world is changing. We can see that, and we can feel it.”

The Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, used this phrase to frame the challenge facing the government during her Spring Statement, and to insist that the government is harnessing those winds of change and not being buffeted by them.

It is a tough communications challenge.

In less than 100 days of the Trump presidency the UK and Europe has had to react quickly to the real world impacts of the changes that have been done to them, not by them. American support for European security is no longer a given, with the US insisting that Europe provides for its own defence.

Trump’s trade war means the UK also now faces blanket 10% tariffs on all exports to the US and 25% on cars, steel and aluminium. That change has forced the government to change, as the growth upon which all its hopes rest is put at risk. It has also forced the government to change how it communicates.

Fortunately change was already baked into its narrative. It was the single word title of the Labour manifesto. And no ministerial statement or appearance can pass without referencing how everything relates to the government’s “Plan for Change”. Voters are not expected to remember what the plan actually is, just to log the fact that there is one and that it involves change.

That change and that plan, however, was supposed to be proactive and strategic, driven by the government with careful and detailed thought.  Most importantly, it was supposed to be a positive change.  Instead, the world is changing but not in the way the government wanted it to or in which it can control.

Despite this, it has provided an unexpectedly clear organising principle that was very evidently lacking in its first six months and used to justify more and more of its agenda, building a central narrative which ministers now link all manner of their announcements to.

Defence spending was hiked at the expense of international development, with Starmer taking centre stage in convening the coalition of the willing European nations offering direct peacekeeping support to Ukraine. British Steel was effectively nationalised from its Chinese owners in the name of the national interest and because “security and renewal for working people is at the heart of my Plan for Change”. Even the abolition of NHS England was justified by Starmer arguing that “something as fundamental to our security as the NHS” should be brought back under direct ministerial control

There are risks, with insisting that you can ride the waves of change.

Initial bold responses to that changing world might project strength and decisiveness. But too many changes of approach start to look like you are simply not in control and are at the mercy of others. The fact is that governments often aren’t in control, but they can’t admit that.

What they can do is acknowledge the uncertainty — and the impact that it has on voters who are concerned about what it means for them and their families — and provide a consistent message that the government is responding calmly, and determinedly.

Crucially, there needs to be a sense that something bigger and better will come at the end. The world is always changing, so this will never be a neat single moment of triumph. But even great moments of turmoil — wars, financial crises, pandemics — subside.

Effective leadership communication requires a challenging balance between honesty and realism about the “now” of change and positivity and aspiration about the future that will make the short or medium term difficulties and sacrifices worth it in the end. Neither gloominess without hope nor optimism without pragmatism will work.

Recognising that the world is changing is only the start. Gaining trust that you can do something about it is the real prize.