
Labour policies ‘obscured' by rows over welfare and winter fuel
Lord Kinnock – who led the party from 1983 to 1992 – told Sky News that a 'cloud hangs over the accomplishments of the Government', as Sir Keir Starmer marked a year in office this weekend.
He said that the party have 'a series of really commendable and absolutely essential policies' and also suggested a wealth tax as a change that could 'commend' them to the general public.
The week of Sir Keir's first anniversary in Number 10 saw the Prime Minister scrap a raft of the Government's proposed welfare reforms in the face of a backbench revolt.
Asked what has gone wrong in Government, Lord Kinnock told the Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips programme: 'What's gone wrong is really the lack of a narrative, a story of the objectives of the Government and where they're working towards it and how they're working towards it.
'They are working towards it with a series of really commendable and absolutely essential policies.
'They are barely noticed because they're obscured by all the song and dance and noise, drums banging and cymbals clashing of the winter fuel payment… the welfare programme, the two-child benefit cap, the cuts in development aid, all those negative things that really are heartily disliked across the Labour movement and more widely, much more widely.'
He said that a 'cloud hangs over the accomplishments of the Government, which are substantial and will become greater, and people are not getting the message'.
Lord Kinnock said there are things the party could do that 'would commend themselves to the great majority of the general public' and that these included 'asset taxes'.
'By going for an imposition of 2% on asset values above £10 million, say, which is a very big fortune, the Government would be in a position to collect £10 billion or £11 billion,' he said.
Shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride said he thought a wealth tax would be 'the worst thing to do' and opposed the idea of 'piling further taxes on the wealth creators'.
He also told the same Sky News programme that it had been a 'year of utter underperformance' from Labour.
'Whether you look at illegal boats, migrants coming across the Channel, that's now at record levels, far from smashing the gangs, they're smashing all the records as to the numbers coming into our country. If you look at the chaotic U-turns that we've just had in the last few weeks,' he added.
Analysis by the PA news agency found that Labour has seen a double-digit drop in support in the opinion polls since last year's general election.
According to figures collated this week, the party has averaged 24% in polls in the past month, down 10 points from 34% in the weeks following the 2024 election.
It is common for political parties to experience a slide in the polls after taking power – it has happened to every UK government bar one in the past 40 years – but a drop of this size is unusual.
The last time it was in double digits was 1992/93, when the Tory administration led by former prime minister John Major saw its poll numbers fall 12 points, from an average of 43% in the weeks after the April 1992 election to 31% a year later.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
Reeves' tears should make us rethink our worst assumptions about politicians
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox 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... Rachel Reeves has said she is "cracking on with the job" of Chancellor after her visible distress in the House of Commons last week. Reeves said she had been upset about a personal matter; the slight difference is that the Chancellor is the second most visible person in the UK Government. Her tears were widely interpreted as the result of a bust-up with the Prime Minister over the calamitous, watered-down Welfare Bill. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Had the head of His Majesty's Treasury been a male, would, in all honesty, our minds have wondered whether his boss was upsetting him so? Or would we assume that something genuinely so distressing had happened to tip them over during the most public domain TV can afford, the government front benches during Prime Minister's Questions? Chancellor Rachel Reeves crying as Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer speaks during Prime Minister's Questions | PA The concept of the stiff British upper lip originated with the Victorians, who considered it beneath one's dignity to express emotion, a trait that Winston Churchill routinely disregarded openly. When it came to blood, toil, tears and sweat, Churchill routinely 'blubbered'. Lachrymosity was as constant a feature for Churchill as his bulldog spirit, stirring oratory, and steely resolve. Born in 1874, his patrician and aristocratic background could not suppress the man's sheer emotion. Behind the defiant V-signs, cigars, and defiant speeches was a person who wore his heart on his sleeve – but Churchill has never been decried as unmanly or irrational, and public emotion has only deepened his reputation for authenticity. Sir Winston Churchill gives his famous wartime V-sign | Getty Images The Victorian era has left us with a problematic inheritance of sentimentality and repression. The accession of the eighteen-year-old Queen Victoria in 1837 was met with cheers and applause by crowds, at which the new monarch "burst into tears, which continued, notwithstanding an evident attempt on the part of her Majesty to restrain her feelings, to flow in torrents down her now pallid cheeks, until her Majesty retired from the window". Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Victoria became a model of a grieving widow but also the epitome of Britishness as Empress of India, a title conferred on her in 1876. By the time of her death in 1901, youthful pathos had been subsumed by a cultural restraint of temper, heralded as the prerequisite for maintaining a quarter of the world. In earlier periods, tearfulness did not imply a lack of manliness or self-control. The eight admirals who carried the coffin of Admiral Horatio Nelson in January 1806 at St Paul's Cathedral were in tears, as was at least half of the all-male congregation. Regency men were not expected to govern their emotions in the way that their Victorian grandsons and great-grandsons were. Deep cynicism towards politicians Emotions in our modern politicians are often dismissed as taboo or tactical, revealing how deeply our cynicism runs. In our media-saturated era, authenticity is a moving target. There is an innate feeling that politicians must be putting on an act. There's even a Japanese term - namida enjou – which critically refers to emotional displays used to attract sympathy or deflect criticism. In many Western cultures, women in politics are expected to be empathetic; however, they are often derided as "too emotional" if they openly express their emotions. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In classical antiquity, particularly in ancient Greece and Rome, Stoics believed that public displays of emotion, especially tears, indicated a lack of self-mastery. For leaders, weeping could suggest weakness or a failure to control passions. Roman emperors, military generals, and senators were expected to exude gravitas, a solemn dignity that left little room for tears. Biblical and ancient Eastern traditions often portrayed rulers and prophets crying in moments of national or spiritual crisis. King David famously wept over the death of his son Absalom. In Chinese history, emperors were sometimes praised for compassionate weeping during times of famine or war. Even in the Roman world, Julius Caesar was known to cry when Alexander the Great's accomplishments were recounted to him—a blend of ambition, envy, and historical candour. As Christianity spread throughout Europe, the concept of the "man of sorrows" gained resonance among Christian leaders, who were encouraged to emulate Christ's compassion. Monarchs and rulers could cry, but only in ways that aligned with their roles as paternalistic figures grieving for their people. Political crying became problematic with the rise of Enlightenment values in the 17th and 18th centuries. Figures like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin emphasised rational governance - tears were considered more suitable for the cultural and literary spheres. Male leaders were expected to display firmness and rational judgment, and to cry in public would risk ridicule or accusations of instability. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Contradictory expectations In the 20th century, mass media, especially radio and television, brought politicians' emotions into living rooms. The expectations were contradictory: leaders were supposed to be human, available, and yet entirely unflappable. In 1990, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was seen with tears in her eyes as she departed from 10 Downing Street after resigning. The attitude that a senior politician 'got what they deserved' is a prevailing one: tears are seen as a sign of weakness to a baying public. Margaret Thatcher leaves Downing Street at the end of her premiership | PA Tony Blair and New Labour were considered a huge modernising force, spearheading the 'Cool Britannia' movement. He coined the term 'People's Princess' to describe Diana in her death and is thought to be the force that convinced Queen Elizabeth II and the Royal Family to change the way they grieved publicly. In the last 20 years, a total public collapse in political confidence has led to an unrelenting scepticism of our leaders' motives. In 2021, when UK Health Secretary Matt Hancock was filmed tearing up during a TV interview about COVID-19 vaccines, critics accused him of faking it for political gain. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad


Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
Lengthening wait times for fire and rescue service show ministers must get their priorities straight
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox 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... Under normal circumstances, one minute and twenty-nine seconds may not seem like a very long time. But, for those who find themselves in need of Scotland's Fire and Rescue Service, it no doubt feels far longer. New figures released under Freedom of Information laws reveal today that the average time for a fire appliance to arrive at the scene after a 999 call in 2024 was eight minutes and 20 seconds - up from six minutes and 51 seconds in 2014. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The Scottish Conservatives, who obtained the figures, claim the increased response time stems from a reduction in Scottish Government funding of £57 million over the same period, during which time the number of firefighters fell by almost 1,000. In addition, 18 fire stations have no running water and most fire engines are more than ten years old. When questioned over cuts to public spending, Scottish ministers instinctively claim they are constrained by inadequate funding from the UK government and complain they do not have access to enough 'levers' to control the nation's finances better. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad And yet the devolution settlement is at a record high, and the Scottish Government has powers over taxation that mean Scotland is the most heavily taxed part of the UK. Question of priorities With this being the case, critics can with some justification question whether ministers should be making cutbacks to a service that is so often the difference between life and death in emergency incidents. At some point - a point we have arguably already passed - raising taxes becomes counterproductive. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad And perhaps at another point, the size of Scotland's public sector will have to stop increasing. Meanwhile, ministers may have to take a closer look at how effectively public money is being spent. Universal benefits such as 'free' prescriptions and university tuition may need to be reassessed.


New Statesman
an hour ago
- New Statesman
Starmerism is disintegrating
Photo by Benjamin Cremel -The decline in support for Labour over the last 12 months has been unprecedented. A party that won almost 34 per cent last July has, within a year, fallen among some pollsters to the low 20s. Yet even that understates the extent of the party's demise. At the outset of the last general election, when Rishi Sunak stood outside Downing Street – soaked by a late Spring shower – many placed Labour in the mid-40s. The more the electorate saw of our now Prime Minister, the less enthusiastic they became. Labour's declining support in office should therefore be viewed as continuing a trend that started before they even gained power. The 'loveless landslide' of 2024 wasn't a vote for the 'grown ups' to quietly re-assert the politics of yesteryear, but a clear signal that every vote, and every media cycle, would be a battle. The incoming government, Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves most of all, weren't paying attention – which meant the opening months of their administration was defined by free silk ties and Taylor Swift tickets. To all intents and purposes they still haven't adapted. At a time of parliamentary breakaways, populism, and electoral fragmentation, what is the constituency of this government? In an age of Zohran Mamdani outlining complex policy issues with a lav mic in hand, and Nigel Farage reaching millions on TikTok (and Cameo), what precisely is its communications strategy? How do they craft their message to a range of audiences? And, most importantly, what is their message? These are no longer abstract questions for insiders, or political rivals with an axe to grind. Last week the Government, with a majority of 156, came close to losing a second reading in parliament – and proceeded to change its landmark welfare reforms in a matter of hours. The last time the government lost a second reading for a piece of domestic legislation was in 1986. For the bond markets that signalled something critical: when it comes to delivering cuts, this government's majority is an illusion. If balancing the books in the autumn requires £30 billion, as is widely believed, that therefore means more tax rises, or a break with the fiscal rules. There is simply no consent within the parliamentary Labour party for substantial reductions to welfare spending. Nor, I suspect, other areas such as policing and local government. That is the problem that now besets this government. Not only was there a lack of clarity about Britain's problems with the electorate before last July – from the massive costs of servicing the public debt to the lack of productivity growth over the last 17 years – but with the party's membership and candidates too. 'I would simply grow the economy,' and 'The Tories are incompetent,' were essentially the positions of Labour in opposition. As many commentators said, including myself, if growth failed to materialise then Treasury rules would necessitate 'fiscal consolidation': tax rises, and cuts to public spending. Many Labour MPs didn't sign up for that, though. Marie Tidball, an extraordinary advocate for people with disabilities, presumably didn't enter parliament to cut Personal Independence Payments. Beth Winter, a Christian socialist, doesn't want to make poor families poorer still. It's possible that even Keir Starmer hadn't worked out the implications of his party's economic platform before entering No 10. Such trivial concerns are seemingly outsourced almost exclusively to the Chancellor. All of which makes the next four months, let alone the next four years, difficult to predict. The autumn budget will be another serious setback for the party, further damaging Reeves' credibility, in all likelihood for good. But it is the Government's response which could be existential. Get things even slightly wrong (including by impelling the Chancellor's exit) and the bond markets will punish them. History tells us it is unusual for a Chancellor to go and the PM not to be irreversibly tarnished. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Even if Starmer survives the autumn, and the winter, which seems probable given his majority, next May brings another momentous challenge. With elections in every London borough, across England's large cities, and Scotland and Wales too, the government could be overwhelmed by challengers to both their left and right. In London, the Greens will want to make gains in places like Southwark and Hackney (focus on their overall percentage as much as councillors won), while Reform will be chasing Labour votes in Havering and Barking and Dagenham. Right now, Keir Starmer's party is also polling third in Scotland and Wales, behind Reform in the party's historic Celtic heartlands. The question of a new party of the left, meanwhile, is somewhat moot – even if the nature of a Corbyn-Sultana vehicle remains unclear. Whether it takes national form or not, by May expect a profusion of successful left-independents and hyper-localist parties. With or without parliamentary leadership, they will cause major problems for Labour. Then there's the small matter of party finances. This year could see Labour's membership fall beneath that of Reform; indeed that may already have happened since the party's general secretary recently refused to disclose membership data to the National Executive Committee. A falling membership goes hand-in-hand with downward finances. According to LabourList, the party is unable to balance its books this year, and will need 'at least £4 million' to fight elections in 2026. With major elections looming – and the party's vote being nibbled by at least five parties, a lack of funding further hampers effective campaigning. Abysmal polling, a national crisis after the autumn, dreadful results in May and organisational finances in disarray: a party doom loop starts to look likely. All of which means that, by next September at the latest, Labour will need to conjure something new: a different leader, a drastic change in policy direction, or both. But that will almost certainly not happen, as justified caution with regard to the rising costs of government debt is joined by the absence of an ideological apparatus to make sense of what is happening. The sell of Starmerism was simple, dangerously so in fact. We now know that a country with little growth, an ageing population and fragmenting politics, needed more than rhetorical allusions to competence and a nice haircut. After Zarah Sultana posted about her departure from the party on X, Gurinder Josan – himself a Labour MP for Smethwick, and a key player within the Labour First faction (which sit on the right of the party) – counter-posed 'far-left' ideology and the 'serious business of government'. But that is entirely the problem for Starmer. In a world of shifting geopolitical realities, energy transition and demographic ageing you need an analytical lens – dare I say an ideology – to understand things. Until the Labour leadership grasp that insight, the government will remain rudderless. Don't bet on that happening before the next general election though. It would require a capacity for self-criticism – and a renunciation of everything Starmer's political career has been built upon. [See also: Could Gaza unite the new left against Keir Starmer?] Related