Why Labour are in turmoil one year after their election win
It's safe to say this is not the first anniversary the Labour government at Westminster would have hoped for. Small will be the celebrations in Downing Street marking 12 months since the party was returned to office at the general election.
Little wonder, given that recent days have seen the most unholy self-inflicted mess over proposed welfare reforms, with backbenchers shredding the government's plans.
There followed the sight of the Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, openly weeping at Prime Minister's Questions; whatever the cause, this was a spectacle without precedent.
Remarkably, with a 165-seat working majority, the government now finds itself looking for ways to recover its authority. For Labour, things need to be turned around in very short order.
Coming to power with a headline promise of 'change', Keir Starmer and his team now need to go back to the drawing board and clearly set out how they will demonstrably improve the lives of so many who envisaged a more hopeful Britain after fourteen years of the Tories.
Having spent considerable time writing about every general election since 1900, I've seen plenty of evidence that understanding the past can help guide those now running the show.
For instance, it was precisely a refusal by MPs to implement huge savings injuring those most in need which doomed Ramsay MacDonald's second Labour administration way back in 1931. Then it was the unemployed, today it is the sick and disabled.
READ MORE FROM UNSPUN:
Two decades later, in 1951, Nye Bevan and Harold Wilson resigned from the government over the imposition of charges on false teeth and spectacles for NHS patients.
The Daily Express said of the plans, by the then Chancellor Hugh Gaitskell, 'that is what the Tories would have done. Now the job is done for them.'
In essence Labour does not exist to hammer those who most need help, quite the opposite. Think here of Neil Kinnock's words on the eve of the 1983 general election.
Fearing the re-election of a Conservative government led by Margaret Thatcher he said: 'I warn you that you will have pain – when healing and relief depend upon payment....I warn you that you will have poverty – when pensions slip and benefits are whittled away.'
Backbench rebels in Parliament today know all too well that Labour must always be an anti-poverty party or it is nothing.
Protecting the most vulnerable in society while building a strong economy in which we can all lead good lives is the tune Starmer and co must play, just as his namesake Keir Hardie understood in 1900.
Yes these have been difficult days of late, and yes government is relentlessly tough work.
All is not lost, but the Prime Minister would be well served to tack leftwards, taking a more traditionally Labour direction.
My feeling is the country would be behind them should Ministers pursue options such as a wealth tax on the richest, or levies on the burgeoning gambling sector; such measures, and others like them, would raise billions of pounds each year.
Politically, there is not a moment to lose, a year in government has passed in the blink of an eye and the local and devolved elections of next spring – including to Holyrood – are already in sight; these will go a long way to defining Labour's chances of winning the next general election.
Douglas Beattie is the author of 'Victory at the Ballot Box: The History of How Labour Built Britain'
(Published 3rd July 2025)by Elliott and Thompson
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
QUENTIN LETTS: Step forward Comrades Corbyn and Sultana! It demands a special sort of dimness and self regard to make such a bungle of the launch of a new political party
Historians may – or, there again, may not – record that the Left's tectonic plates shifted at 8.11pm on Thursday. That was when Coventry South MP Zarah Sultana pressed the button on her electronic device and posted a message on X to say she was quitting Labour to 'co-lead the founding of a new party' with Jeremy Corbyn. 'The time is now,' announced Comrade Sultana, 31. 'We are not going to take this any more. In 2029 the choice will be stark: socialism or barbarism.' Barbarism! The balloon had gone up. Leftist civil war had been declared. It was 'action stations' and 'en garde' and 'red alert', with the emphasis on the red. A Leftist breakaway movement had been expected for months, rumours building like summer thunder clouds. On Wednesday evening, with Labour rocked by parliamentary divisions over welfare cuts and with crisis surrounding the future of that leaky bucket Rachel Reeves, Mr Corbyn revealed an inch of ankle on ITV. Interviewer Robert Peston asked the former Labour leader – who was ejected from his old party by his onetime lieutenant Sir Keir Starmer – if he was really going to start a new party. The Che Guevara of Islington North stroked his beardlet, sat back on his sofa with just a hint of prosperous tummy, and replied that there was 'a thirst' for such a venture and more would be disclosed anon. Twenty-four hours later young Zarah had activated the fission. Kaboom. The Great Leftist Split had been triggered. Or perhaps not. As yesterday's brave new dawn broke in north London it became evident that a small mushroom cloud had formed over Islington. Mr Corbyn, 76, had exploded in the most terrible bate. Ms Sultana, with youthful impatience, had jumped the gun. The dramatic reveal had been bungled. In political terms it was a case of what old-fashioned doctors used to call ejaculatio praecox. Despite Ms Sultana's 'the time is now' claim, the time was meant to have been later, possibly on the eve of the Labour Party conference in the autumn when it might have had considerably more impact. But now the semi-secret was out, and it was running up and down the cloisters of Westminster with nothing to cover its modesty. They may be socialist egalitarians but Lefties are just as good at hating each other as Brexity Right-wingers. If anything, they do it with less humour. You only had to look at the sulphurous scenes in the Commons during Tuesday's welfare debate. Even after the Government had caved in, Labour MPs such as Andy McDonald, Imran Hussain and Ian Lavery were foul to the Government. What they now must think of Zarah Sultana, one dreads to think. To launch a political party is quite something. To bungle the launch of one is even more of an achievement. It demands a special type of dimness, muddle and vaunting self-regard. Ms Sultana seems to have thought herself a sufficiently big raisin to break the news herself, only to have her veteran co-conspirator rage at her impetuosity. Once he had recovered his equilibrium Mr Corbyn himself issued a message on X yesterday lunchtime to say that 'real change is coming' (NB not yet) and that Ms Sultana would 'help us build a real alternative' to Labour. You will notice that is not quite the same as confirming that she would be 'co-leading' the thing. Mr Corbyn's message added that 'the democratic foundations of a new kind of party will soon take shape'. Translation: you can forget about calling yourself a co-leader, young lady, until you have been voted as such by the new party's rank and file members. This new party does not yet have a public name so for the time being we should perhaps call it The People's Front of Judaea. This is not some jibe at Ms Sultana and Mr Corbyn's trenchant, some might say excessive, support for Palestinian independence. The People's Front of Judaea is the knot of political obsessives in Monty Python's Life Of Brian film, set in 1st century AD Jerusalem. When asked if they are the Judaean People's Front, or indeed the Popular Front, these scowling nutters become infuriated. 'The only people we hate more than the Romans are the f****** Judaean People's Front!' spits the ringleader, Reg. These days Reg might possibly be called Jeremy. Monty Python's satire harpoons the fragmentising nature of party politics. With each bifurcation, each indignant walk-out by politicians in proud possession of their most precious principles, movements become smaller and rivalries only increase. Eventually you end up with tiny cabals of harrumphing prigs who are more concerned about their pet causes than they are in trying to form a broad party that might, to quote the Book of Common Prayer, allow the country to be 'godly and quietly governed'. Quietness, however, is not really Zarah Sultana's thing. When she speaks in the House of Commons it is invariably in an urgent, tremulous voice, as if she needs to dash to the lavatory the moment her speech has ended. This one is a quavery commissar, making blood-curdling accusations about capitalism and Zionism and – dark organ chords, please – the dreaded Tories. Anyone who is not as Left-wing as her is, as she might say, 'barbaric'. All this is tremendously lively on social media feeds. She flies off the bat in a TikTok video or what-have-you. But in the flesh, for anything more than a 30-second burst, its rigid insistence can become tiresome. Mr Corbyn may have a public reputation for political extremism but in the flesh he is a less intense personality. He is softly spoken, can occasionally be droll, even charming. I'd say it is not impossible that, while he probably admires Sister Zarah's energy, he finds her rather exhausting. As might the voters. Put it like this: you would not want to share a space rocket with Zarah Sultana. She'd hog the oxygen. And this, perhaps, is the delusional weakness of modern politics and may explain the atomisation of both Left (Labour's vote being eaten into by independents, by George Galloway's Workers Party and soon by the Corbyn start-up) and Right (the Conservatives have been lopped in half by Nigel Farage's Reform).
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
Sir Keir Starmer under mounting Labour rebel pressure to scrap two-child benefit cap
Sir Keir Starmer is coming under mounting pressure from within his own Cabinet to scrap the two-child benefit cap, despite Treasury warnings over a lack of funding to ditch the policy. Sign up to our Politics newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... The demand to remove the cap on benefit payments to families with more than two children comes in the same week that MPs forced the Prime Minister to back down on plans to cut £5 billion from the welfare budget. The climbdown hands Chancellor Rachel Reeves a major headache ahead of the Budget in the autumn. It comes just weeks after a similar £1.25bn U-turn on winter fuel payments and leaves the Chancellor with a £6.25bn hole to fill. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Any move to ditch the two-child cap, which means families can only claim child tax credit and universal credit for their first two children, would cost the exchequer around £3.5bn, bringing the total expenditure on the welfare policies to £9.75bn, effectively wiping out Ms Reeves's £9.9bn fiscal headroom. Health Secretary Wes Streeting, centre, with Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Keir Starmer, at the Sir Ludwig Guttman Health & Wellbeing Centre in London, England. Picture: Jack Hill/Getty Image The pressure mounts with the Scottish Government having confirmed it lift the two-child benefit cap on March 2 next year north of the Border – just two weeks before the Holyrood election campaign begins. One UK Cabinet minister acknowledged there was a 'significant cost' to scrapping two-child limit, but added: 'There is also a significant cost in other ways, of a Labour government not taking action to bring down child poverty. And we have to be able to go into the next election having made significant progress on child poverty.' The Cabinet member added: 'Whilst it's hard and the cost is high, it's clear that it is an effective way of supporting families and making sure that fewer children grow up in poverty. And the evidence supports that. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'The challenge is less do we do it – it's whether we can do it, and what the timing would look like around that.' Leading members of the welfare rebellion have warned the UK government will have to scrap the two-child cap if it is to meet its obligations to cut child poverty rates. Rachael Maskell, Labour MP for York Central, said: "It is imperative that the government scrap the two-child limit and the benefit cap as this will lift 360,000 children out of poverty. But most of all, this will give these children a life of better opportunities, including to their health and wellbeing.' Another rebel warned: 'It definitely needs to go. We cannot seek to trade off poor children against poor disabled people or poor pensioners. We need to have a mission to tackle all poverty. End of.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Ms Reeves warned MPs on Thursday via a broadcast interview there 'is a cost' to the welfare changes voted for in Parliament this week that would be reflected in the Budget, when asked if there would be tax rises. The comments followed Cabinet Office minister Pat McFadden insisting 'you can't spend the same money twice'. 'So more money spent on [welfare] means less for some other purpose,' he told the BBC this week. But government sources have said scrapping the two-child cap still 'remains on the table', despite the warnings from the Treasury, as removing the policy remains popular within the Cabinet. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Both Sir Keir and Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson have previously signalled the cap will go, with the latter understood to be particularly opposed to the policy. A Whitehall source said: 'It's still being discussed as part of the Child Poverty Taskforce. It's still on the table. This is not something we would have done in government, and it is one of a number of levers that is being looked at to alleviate child poverty." Social Justice Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville has said scrapping the two-child cap in Scotland could work out at nearly £3,500 for affected children and could see 20,000 fewer children living in relative poverty. Finance Secretary Shona Robison announced plans to scrap the cap in the 2025/26 Budget. The Scottish Government has said this is the 'fastest' a Scottish social security benefit has ever been delivered. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In other UK government developments, Sir Keir Starmer said he had a good relationship with US President Donald Trump because they both 'care about family'. The Prime Minister told the BBC Radio 4 podcast Political Thinking With Nick Robinson it was 'in the national interest' for the two men to connect. He said: 'We are different people and we've got different political backgrounds and leanings, but we do have a good relationship and that comes from a numbers of places. 'I think I do understand what anchors the president, what he really cares about. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'For both of us, we really care about family and there's a point of connection there.' Sir Keir said yesterday in the interview to mark a year in office he had a 'good personal relationship' with Mr Trump, and revealed the first time they spoke was after the-then presidential candidate was shot at a campaign rally in July last year. Addressing recent political turmoil, Sir Keir said he would always 'carry the can' as leader after coming under fire over a climbdown on welfare reforms and that he would 'always take responsibility' when asked questions. 'When things go well … the leader gets the plaudits, but when things don't go well, it is really important that the leader carries the can – and that's what I will always do,' he said. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad
ITV News
an hour ago
- ITV News
Reeves says welfare fallout ‘damaging' and declines to rule out tax hikes
Rachel Reeves refused to rule out tax rises in the autumn budget, as she admitted the fallout over the Government's welfare Bill had been 'damaging'. The Chancellor warned there would be 'costs to what happened', as she faced questions about how she would cover a shortfall left by the Downing Street climbdown on planned cuts to disability benefits. The Government saw off the threat of a major Commons defeat over the legislation on Tuesday, after shelving plans to restrict eligibility for the personal independence payment (Pip) in the face of a backbench revolt. The original welfare proposals had been part of a package that ministers expected would save up to £5 billion a year, with economists warning that tax rises are now likely to plug a gap left by the concessions to rebels. The fallout threatens to cause lasting damage to morale in Labour ranks, with some MPs calling for a reset in relations between the parliamentary party and the leadership before fractures widen. Images of the Chancellor crying in the Commons on Wednesday also spooked the financial markets and led to questions about her future, though a Treasury spokesman said the tears were the result of a personal matter and Downing Street said she would remain in post. In an interview with the Guardian newspaper, Ms Reeves said she had never considered resigning, adding: 'I didn't work that hard to then quit.' She said she had gone to Prime Minister's Questions because she 'thought that was the right thing to do' but that 'in retrospect, I probably wished I hadn't gone in… (on) a tough day in the office'. Ms Reeves added: 'It's been damaging. 'I'm not going to deny that, but I think where we are now, with a review led by (disability minister) Stephen Timms, who is obviously incredibly respected and has a huge amount of experience, that's the route we're taking now.'
