
I think Keir Starmer's ineptitude here takes some beating
Sir Keir Starmer pays for that first challenge through reputational damage. We will all pay for the second challenge through other spending curbs and possible tax hikes.
I have covered politics for the odd decade. I have witnessed missteps aplenty by leaders from each and every political party. However, the ineptitude displayed here takes some beating.
Read More:
Consider the PM's demeanour. There he was at the NATO summit, promising a substantial increase in defence spending. Which, in itself, leaves some Labour MPs disquieted.
Asked about the growing insurrection over cuts to disability payments, he dismissed the complaints as 'noises off'. Cue yet more anger from discontented backbenchers, furious that their genuine concerns for the disadvantaged were downplayed in such a fashion.
Then, inevitably changing tack, he conceded on Thursday that there would be talks with the dissidents, aimed at achieving a settlement in line with 'Labour values of fairness.'
The rebels duly entered those talks. But many were privately asking themselves what happened to those 'Labour values' when Ministers proposed a package of reforms which their own official advisers said would push a quarter of a million people into poverty, including 50,000 children.
For pity's sake, what did Sir Keir and his Cabinet think the reaction would be to such a forecast? Meek acquiescence?
In viewing this spectacle, I could not help thinking of Neil Kinnock's 1985 conference speech, condemning Militant, when he summoned up 'the grotesque chaos of a Labour council – a Labour council – hiring taxis to scuttle round a city handing out redundancy notices to its own workers.'
Change the accent, excise the oratory and you have Keir Starmer heading a Labour government – a Labour government – driving people into poverty with cuts in disability support.
Sir Keir has now performed a hat-trick of U-turns. On winter fuel payments, on a statutory inquiry into grooming gangs – and on welfare. This is by far the most substantive.
Can he come back from this? He can – although there is a much shorter electoral timetable in Scotland. But, still, it makes us revisit basic questions about his leadership.
Firstly, last July's big Labour win is not solely or even chiefly down to him. He entered Downing Street because folk were heartily sick of the Tories – and sought a conduit to kick them out.
As things stand, Reform seem to be offering an alternative for those who have broadened their disgust – and are utterly sick of established politics, full stop.
Secondly, with some exceptions, the team around him have failed to shine. Including the Chancellor. Was there really nobody to suggest gently that the emperor was somewhat short of bodily cover on the benefits issue?
Were they, perhaps understandably to some degree, so engrossed in global crisis that they failed to notice – or, rather, sufficiently address – the concerns of their backbenchers over the most distressed and disadvantaged of our citizens?
Thirdly, and ironically, the very weakness of the Conservatives adds to Sir Keir's problems. To be blunt, he has nothing to beat. Relatively little is required of him in the Commons or in public discourse.
Finally, those Labour values. When you contemplate Sir Keir, do you really summon up principles such as egalitarianism and fairness?
Yes, you will know of his upbringing, His mum, the nurse. His father, the toolmaker. He told us often enough. But do values of commonality and collective endeavour shine through from him?
I get the concept. He took over from Jeremy Corbyn and felt obliged to stress that Labour had moved from the Left, had changed – and would, consequently, change the country.
On assuming office, Rachel Reeves felt the need to assuage the markets with a balanced budget. Hence the stress she placed upon curbing winter fuel payments. For a Labour Chancellor, it was deliberately counter-intuitive. Again, I get it.
In due course, they backed down on winter fuel. And the cuts to disability benefits went too far for their party. Way too far. And for the voters.
By chance, I chaired a conference on the issue in Glasgow this month. Two things stood out. Deep, genuine apprehension over the benefit cuts. And entrenched distrust over the package of support for getting jobs.
Labour know they got this badly wrong. The emphasis on job creation needed to come first. The cuts needed to be moderated. Both will now happen. Sir Keir will insist that reform is still on track.
However, this has been a fundamentally damaging episode for the PM. I understand the motivation. The desire to be fiscally cautious, to generate funds for spending in other quarters. But this was the wrong target, introduced in the wrong way.
No doubt temporarily, Sir Keir seemed to forget which party he was leading – and in which legislature. He is Prime Minister, primus inter pares, completely dependent upon Commons votes. Not a dismissive, stand-alone President.
Those were not 'noises off'. They were concerns voiced by his backbenchers, his supporters, the bulwark of his power.
Then there is Scotland. Where former Labour Minister Brian Wilson, writing in The Herald, urged a rethink to avoid 'a deep and lasting split'.
Where former MSP Neil Findlay questioned the sanity of Labour MPs – while warning that their chances of re-election would be reduced, not enhanced.
Where the Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar was left stranded. Backing the principle of reform – while urging 'fairness'. In practice, as his MP colleagues made up their minds, his influence appeared minimal.
He was duly lampooned by John Swinney at Holyrood – as the SNP cited figures indicating that child poverty is down in Scotland, by contrast with England and Wales.
There is a way back for the PM. There is almost always a way back. But this has been deeply, deeply damaging. For Sir Keir Starmer, never glad confident morning again.
Brian Taylor is a former political editor for BBC Scotland and a columnist for The Herald. He cherishes his family, the theatre – and Dundee United FC

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


The Guardian
26 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Just when the world desperately needs wise elders, its fate is in the hands of old and ruthless patriarchs
Let's attempt something delicate: talking about age without slipping into ageism. Never before in modern history have those with the fate of the world in their hands been so old. Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping are both 72. Narendra Modi is 74, Benjamin Netanyahu 75, Donald Trump 79, and Ali Khamenei is 86. Thanks to advances in medical science, people are able to lead longer, more active lives – but we are now also witnessing a frightening number of political leaders tightening their grip on power as they get older, often at the expense of their younger colleagues. This week, at their annual summit, the leaders of Nato – including Emmanuel Macron and Mette Frederiksen (both 47), Giorgia Meloni (48) and Pedro Sánchez (53) – were forced to swallow Trump's demand for increased military spending. The average age of Nato heads of state is 60. Germany's Friedrich Merz is 69, Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is 71. All bowed to a new 5% defence spending target – an arbitrary figure, imposed without serious military reasoning or rational debate, let alone serious democratic debate at home. It was less policy, more deference to the whims of a grumpy patriarch. Nato's secretary general, Mark Rutte – himself just 58 – went so far as to call Trump 'Daddy'. That's not diplomacy. That's submission. This generational clash plays out in other arenas. Ukraine's 47-year-old president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, is resisting the imperial ambitions of septuagenarian Putin. Septuagenarian Xi eyes a Taiwan led by a president seven years his junior. Netanyahu, three-quarters of a century old, is overseeing devastation in Gaza, where almost half the population is under 18. In Iran an 86 year old rules over a population with an average age of 32. Cameroon's Paul Biya, 92, has been in power since 1982 in a country where the median age is 18 and life expectancy just 62. There is no gerontocratic conspiracy at work here – no senior citizens' club bent on global domination. But there is something disturbing about a world being dismantled by the very people whose lives were defined by its postwar architecture. Khamenei was six when the second world war ended. Trump was born in 1946, the year the United Nations held its first general assembly. Netanyahu was born a year after Israel was founded. Modi was born in 1950, as India became a republic. Putin entered the world in October 1952, months before Stalin died. Xi in June 1953, just after. And Erdoğan was born in 1954, two years after Turkey joined Nato. These men are the children of the postwar world – and as they near the end of their lives, they seem determined to tear it down. It almost looks like revenge. Dylan Thomas urged us to 'Rage, rage against the dying of the light'. Rarely has the line felt so literal. Yes, the rules-based international order was always messier in practice than on paper. But at least the ideal existed. There was a shared moral framework – shaky, yes, but sincere – built on the conviction that humanity must never repeat the atrocities of the first half of the 20th century and that dialogue and diplomacy were better. That conviction has now evaporated, not least in the minds of those who should cherish it most. This is an unprecedented moment. The architects of the previous global disorder – Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao – were all in their 30s or 40s when they rose to power. A new generation built a new world, and lived with its consequences. Today, that new world is being unmade by an old generation – one that will not live to see the wreckage it leaves behind. It's easier to shout 'drill, baby, drill' when you're statistically unlikely to experience the worst of climate collapse. Après nous le déluge, as the French say. You might think that a generation so fortunate to benefit from longevity would leave behind a legacy of care, gratitude and global stewardship. Instead, we are witnessing the worst resurgence of repression, violence, genocide, ecocide and contempt for international law in decades – waged, more often than not, by ruthless septuagenarians and octogenarians who appear more interested in escaping prosecution than preserving peace. But it doesn't have to be this way. After leaving office, Nelson Mandela founded the Elders, a network of former world leaders working to promote peace, justice and human rights. Inspired by African traditions of consensus and elder wisdom, the Elders are an example of how age can bring clarity, compassion and conscience – not just clout. The problem isn't old age. It's how some have chosen to wield it. The world doesn't need more ageing strongmen clinging to power. It needs elders who are willing to let go – and guide. The kind who think about legacy not as personal glory, but as the world they leave behind. In this age of age, what we need is not domination, but wisdom. And that, in the end, is what separates a ruler from a leader. David Van Reybrouck is philosopher laureate for the Netherlands and Flanders. His books include Revolusi: Indonesia and the Birth of the Modern World and Congo: The Epic History of a People Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.


Wales Online
38 minutes ago
- Wales Online
Keir Starmer warns Wales that Nigel Farage will treat us like 'fools' in scathing attack
Keir Starmer warns Wales that Nigel Farage will treat us like 'fools' in scathing attack The Prime Minister said Nigel Farage 'takes people for fools' Keir Starmer speaking at the Welsh Labour conference at Venue Cymru in Llandudno (Image: Welsh Labour TV/PA ) Prime Minister Keir Starmer has attacked Nigel Farage saying he has "no plan" for Wales. In a speech to Welsh Labour members at their conference in Llandudno he said the Reform UK leader 'isn't interested in Wales'. Referencing Mr Farage's visit to Port Talbot where he said his party wanted to look at reopening mines in Wales and said that the blast furnaces at the Tata plant in Port Talbot should be restarted. The Prime Minister criticised both of those saying the Clacton MP's plan for Port Talbot would result in the current progress towards the electric arc furnace being stopped and jobs being lost. For our free daily briefing on the biggest issues facing the nation, sign up to the Wales Matters newsletter here . The Port Talbot proposal was widely criticised as being unrealistic. Mr Farage himself admitted it would cost 'in the low billions' and industry experts and members said not only is the cost prohibitive but it is impossible to restart a closed blast furnace. He didn't directly criticise the reopening of coals mines suggestion by Mr Farage but did use the opportunity to highlight things his administration had done in terms of committing money to coal tip regeneration and miners' pensions. "Nigel Farage isn't interested in Wales, he's interested in Nigel Farage, he takes people for fools. Article continues below "Just look what he said earlier this month, going to Port Talbot pretending he's got a plan to reopen the blast furnace, he's got no idea what he's talking about. He's got no plan at all. "Let's be clear. What Reform's plans would be mean in practice. Cancelling the electric arc furnace, cancelling the construction work that's on track to start in just a few weeks time, cancelling the 5,000 jobs it'll bring. "That's all you ever need to know about Reform," he said. Reform UK is polling to take seats in the Senedd and a recent UK Parliamentary poll by YouGov showed they would take 23 seats off Labour. Plaid Cymru would also do well at the expense of Labour. Less than a year ago, in the July general election, Labour took 27 of the 32 seats available. You can read that story here. The Senedd election in May 2026 is widely seen as being a huge test for both Eluned Morgan and Keir Starmer. Polling shows Labour could slip from the party in power, for the whole of the devolution period, to third with 18% of the vote. The most recent polling for Wales by YouGov is here. Article continues below The next election will be fought under a new voting system, with new constituencies and will increase the number of Senedd members from 60 to 96 at a cost of billions.


The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Home discomforts send Trump rushing to project image of global patriarch
'Daddy's home.' So said a social media post from the White House, accompanied by a video featuring the song Hey Daddy (Daddy's Home) by Usher and images of Donald Trump at the Nato summit in The Hague. The US president's fundraising allies were quick to market $35 T-shirts with his image and the word after Mark Rutte, the Nato secretary general, referred to Trump's criticism of Israel and Iran over violations of a ceasefire by quipping: 'And then Daddy has to sometimes use strong language to get [them to] stop.' Yet even as Trump seeks to project an image of global patriarch, there are signs of trouble on the home front. His polling numbers are down. His party is struggling to pass his signature legislation. Millions of people have marched in the streets to protest against him. Critics say the president who claims to put America First is in fact putting America Last. Trump is not the first president to find the foreign policy domain, where as commander-in-chief he recently ordered strikes on nuclear sites in Iran, less restrictive than the domestic sphere, where a rambunctious Congress, robust judiciary and sceptical media are constant irritants. But rarely has the gap between symbolic posturing abroad and messy politicking at home been so pronounced. 'There's two presidencies,' said Larry Jacobs, director of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance at the University of Minnesota. 'The one on the domestic front is gruesome and involves long-drawn-out and disappointing negotiations with Congress and that's exactly what Donald Trump is engaged in now. What emerges from Congress is not going to be as 'big' or 'beautiful' as he promised. 'Meanwhile you've got staggering photographs of bombs falling from the sky, Donald Trump's flamboyant description of what he's achieved in Iran and Europe. That's the kind of Hollywood performance that Donald Trump wants.' The president stunned the world last Saturday by announcing, on his Truth Social platform, that he had ordered more than 125 aircraft and 75 weapons – including 14 bunker-busting bombs – to hit three targets in Iran to prevent the country obtaining a nuclear weapon. He followed up with a White House speech, choreographed to project an image of power, in which he declared: 'Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.' That narrative has since been cast into doubt by a leaked intelligence report suggesting that the operation set back Iran's nuclear programme by only a few months. Still, Trump pivoted to the role of peacemaker, again using Truth Social to announce a ceasefire between Iran and Israel, prompting Republicans to gush that he should win the Nobel peace prize. Trump's barrage of speeches, interactions with reporters and social media posts about the Middle East were likened by some to a daily soap opera, dominating Americans' attention and distracting them from his one big beautiful bill, a budget plan that threatens to slash the social safety net that many of his own supporters depend on. Jacobs observed: 'This is a classic deception. He's like the carnival barker who's waving his hands to keep the attention of the audience even as he's hiding the part for the next trick. 'What's coming out of Congress is going to absolutely harm many of his voters. Politicians like to cover their tracks; there's no covering the tracks here. There will be known cuts to widely used popular programmes like the healthcare for Medicaid and there will be no doubt as to who's responsible. These are traceable, highly visible consequences of Donald Trump.' Now in the sixth month of his second presidency, Trump's domestic honeymoon is over. A poll of 1,006 likely voters nationwide by John Zogby Strategies on 24 and 25 June found the president's approval rating down three points to 45%. About 49% of voters approve of his handling of immigration while 47% disapprove but on the economy 43% approve and 54% disapprove. Asked if they expect Trump's presidency will make them financially better off or worse off, 40% said better and 50% said worse. Zogby commented: 'There is a lot of anxiety domestically, first and foremost on the economy. People are confused and insecure. The numbers are plunging.' Consumer confidence unexpectedly deteriorated in June, a sign of economic uncertainty because of Trump's sweeping tariffs. The anxiety reported by the Conference Board was across the political spectrum, with the steepest decline among Republicans. And the share of consumers viewing jobs as plentiful was the smallest since March 2021. Elizabeth Warren, a Democratic senator, argued in a floor speech this week that Trump had broken him promise to lower costs 'on day one'. She said: 'American families don't need another war – they need good jobs and lower prices, and that is what we should be focused on.' Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion Warren listed 10 ways in which the One Big Beautiful Bill Act would raise costs for families, from rent to groceries to prescription drug prices, and warned that it will take healthcare away from more than 16 million people. Republicans in the House of Representatives and Senate continue to haggle over the contents of the bill as a 4 July deadline looms. Neera Tanden, president and chief executive of the Center for American Progress and a former domestic policy adviser to President Joe Biden, told an audience on Thursday: 'This legislation is the greatest Robin Hood-in-reverse legislation that I have ever seen in my lifetime. It is cutting healthcare for working-class people and using those dollars to fund tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.' Meanwhile discontent is simmering over Trump's signature issue of immigration, even among some of his own voters. Videos of people being snatched off the streets or beaten by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) agents have provoked widespread revulsion. There have also been cases such as that of Ming Li Hui, a popular member of staff at a restaurant in rural Missouri who was arrested and jailed to await deportation. Her friend Vanessa Cowart told the New York Times: 'I voted for Donald Trump, and so did practically everyone here. But no one voted to deport moms. We were all under the impression we were just getting rid of the gangs, the people who came here in droves.' Meanwhile aggressive workplace raids are hurting hotels, restaurants, farms, construction firms and meatpacking companies, including in conservative states. The alarm recently got through to Trump, who admitted that some undocumented immigrants were actually 'very good, longtime workers' and ordered a temporary pause, only to then yield back to hardliners in his administration. Wendy Schiller, a political science professor at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, said: 'In a restaurant, if you lose your cooks, you can't serve people and you lose money. If you are in a factory where people have been swooped up by Ice, you have to do more work. 'It puts more of the burden on the same people who might have voted for Donald Trump – lower-income or middle-income factory workers or meat-processing people. They're feeling the effects of this immigration sweep in ways that the administration did not anticipate.' Trump's second term has been further marred by the tech billionaire Elon Musk leading a 'department of government efficiency', or Doge, that fired thousands of federal workers but fell far short of its cost-saving target before Musk left amid acrimony. The president's authoritarian attacks on cultural institutions, law firms, media organisations and universities fuelled 'No Kings' protests involving more than 5 million people in more than 2,100 cities and towns across the country on 14 June. In that context, it is perhaps not surprising that Trump should relish the global stage, where any world leader is just a phone call away and where he is now being feted as statesman and father figure. It has proven easier to drop bombs on Iran or pressure Nato to agree to a big increase in military spending than to tame Thomas Massie, a rebellious Kentucky Republican defying him over both Iran and the spending bill. Schiller added: 'It is true for every president, Republican or Democrat, that when things are going south domestically they turn to foreign affairs. Trump feels in some ways more powerful on the global stage than he does trying to get Congress to do what he wants. The House Republicans are giving him a hard time. The Senate Republicans are giving him a hard time. He's annoyed by this so then he goes, well, we're a global military power.'