It's time for Starmer and Reeves to embrace the soft left
Despite a landslide majority, and a previously iron parliamentary discipline inherited from last year's election campaign, Keir Starmer has had to u-turn twice within a week to stave off backbench revolt against his flagship welfare reform legislation. And the truth is that this humiliation has been better than the alternative which would have been putting the unamended legislation to the vote in the House of Commons to see it defeated – as it inevitably would have.
A retreat allows Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves to live to fight another day. A defeat would have shattered their political authority jointly and severally – for make no mistake this government's economic management is a combined political endeavour, seen as that by voters and money markets alike. For all the feverish talk in parliamentary lobbies, Rachel Reeves really is 'going nowhere' as No 10 has said.
Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves are bound together – as prime ministers and chancellors inevitably are. As are the entirety of the current cabinet because in this is a case where the discipline of collective responsibility really bites. Just as in 'Murder on the Orient Express' they all had a hand in this. They all agreed to plans to cut disability benefits by some £5bn a year, and simple arithmetic tells you that amounts to a cut of at least £1000 a year for a million people or, as in this case £4500 a year for nearly a million people with disabilities. Big numbers require big cuts which always means big pain.
So, if Cabinet members are seeking advantage and briefing against the Chancellor they should remember: 'First they came for the Winter Fuel Payment, and I did not speak out for I was not a pensioner. Then they came for Personal Independence Payments and I did not speak out…'.
We are nearly a year into the rigors of government, so all members of Labour's leadership need to shape up or the voters will ship them out. What are the lessons for Labour?
The obvious one is that like so many political problems the issue is the policy not the communications. If you can't explain why you are doing something then just don't do it. There was not a single argument mounted for cutting Personal Independence Payments (PIP) despite ministers repeating the mantra that there was a moral case for the cuts.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
So, what was the underlying case for change? Logically, it can't have been to do with work incentives as it's an in-work benefit. And it's not driven by public opinion. Luke Tryl at More in Common says people were disgusted when they heard the details of the cuts and who suffers. These cuts aren't even popular with the 'hero' voters of the Red Wall – not least because there are a higher proportion of PIP concentrated in Red Wall areas. According to those who campaigned in Doncaster in May it nearly cost them the mayoralty – only Labour's world class field operations saved the day. Like so many other errors in politics, this was a demonstration of the folly of defending the indefensible – and doing that for far too long.
The less obvious point is that it's time for both Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves to embrace the 'soft left' part of the government's agenda and to become associated with it. Because that's the truly popular part of what Labour is doing – but it's buried as though Labour are ashamed. When focus groups are told that the National Living Wage is now two-thirds of median earnings they are surprised but pleased. The same goes for the extension of workers' rights and renters' rights. The bitter irony is that it's only the most unpopular things that the Labour government are doing which get any coverage in the media. The truly popular things Labour is doing are being done by stealth.
If I were advising Keir and Rachel on a reset, I'd say 'Just go for it! Use the power of government to intervene for the public good. Call up Thames Water and tell them you accept that they can't carry on doing business under the current regulatory machine. And that's why you're nationalising them. You'll get a bargain basement asset that can generate you a return. And you'll show the voters that you get it – what counts is what's most social democratic!'
[See more: Is Keir Starmer turning into Harold Wilson?]
Related
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
33 minutes ago
- BBC News
Welfare U-turn makes spending decisions harder, minister says
Spending decisions have been made "harder" by the government's U-turn on welfare changes, the education secretary has said, as she did not commit to scrapping the two-child benefit Phillipson told BBC One's Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg programme that ministers were "looking at every lever" to lift children out of she said removing the cap would "come at a cost" and insisted the government was supporting families with the cost of living in other comes after a rebellion of Labour MPs forced the government to significantly water down a package of welfare reforms that would have saved £5bn a year by 2030. The climbdown means the savings will now be delayed or lost entirely, which puts pressure on Chancellor Rachel Reeves ahead of the autumn its retreat on benefits, the Labour government was considering lifting the two-child benefit cap, a policy that restricts means-tested benefits to a maximum of two children per family for those born after April asked if the chances of getting rid of the cap had diminished, Phillipson said: "The decisions that have been taken in the last week do make decisions, future decisions harder."But all of that said, we will look at this collectively in terms of all of the ways that we can lift children out of poverty."
Powys County Times
37 minutes ago
- Powys County Times
Shona Robison urges Prime Minister to follow Scotland on taxation
Scotland's Finance Secretary said Labour needs a 'new direction' as she called on the Prime Minister to look north of the border for a more progressive tax system to protect public spending. Ms Robison said that if Labour had followed the Scottish model, where higher earners pay more tax, Labour would not be in the 'complete fiscal mess that they are in now.' Her comments come after Sir Keir Starmer's Government was forced into a last-minute climbdown in order for welfare legislation to pass its first parliamentary hurdle earlier this week. In a late concession on Tuesday evening, ministers shelved plans to restrict eligibility for the personal independence payment (Pip), with any changes now only coming after a review of the benefit. These changes are expected to put pressure on other parts of the Government's finances. Ms Robison said: 'People voted for a Labour government last year because they wanted change from the Tories – but after a year of attacks on the incomes of pensioners, the poor and the disabled, they are rightly wondering exactly what, if anything, is different. 'When Keir Starmer took office, he could have chosen to ask people on higher incomes to pay a little more in tax in order to protect public spending. 'Choosing instead to target the vulnerable is not leadership – frankly, it is political cowardice. 'If Keir Starmer had done in England what the SNP have done in Scotland with taxation, Labour would not be in the complete fiscal mess that they are in now. 'After a year of mistakes, Labour needs a new direction – and they should look to Scotland. By asking people on higher incomes to pay a bit more in tax, we have ensured a majority of taxpayers pay less than they would elsewhere in the UK, and are able to unlock more spending for services like the NHS, as well as cut poverty by introducing a Scottish Child Payment, and ensure that everybody can benefit from important services like free tuition and free prescriptions.' She added: 'Labour used to tell Scotland that we didn't need independence and we just needed to get rid of the Tory government – but the last year has completely demolished that argument. 'No Westminster government will ever deliver the truly fair society which I believe the vast majority of people in Scotland want to live in – and that is why independence is the best future for Scotland.' Scottish Labour's economy, business and fair work spokesperson Daniel Johnson MSP said: 'SNP ministers have a brass neck to think they can lecture anyone after their atrocious financial mismanagement. 'The SNP use higher taxes on Scottish nurses and firefighters as a substitute for economic growth, waste billions on out-of-control prison and ferry projects, and have created multibillion-pound black holes in the public finances. 'Labour is delivering the largest funding settlement in the history of devolution, with £50 billion for Scotland's NHS, schools and public services this year alone. Despite that, the SNP are now gearing up to make cuts to fill their fiscal black hole. 'The SNP government has the money, they have the powers, but they are out of ideas, out of excuses and out of time. 'Next year, we have the chance to kick out this SNP Government that cannot be trusted with taxpayers' money.'
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
‘We've made progress': environment secretary is upbeat despite Labour's struggles
It was probably easier for Steve Reed to feel more cheerful about Labour's most torrid week in government while sitting on bales of hay in the blazing sunshine about 40 miles from Westminster. The environment secretary might have sympathised with Rachel Reeves and Liz Kendall – he has experience of bearing the flak for some of the government's most controversial decisions on family farm taxes – but at Hertfordshire's Groundswell festival, named the Glastonbury for farms, he may simply have been happy not to be pelted with manure by unhappy farmers. Reed said he remained relatively relaxed about Labour's struggles during its first year in government and that tangible change in people's living standards would start to make a difference to the party's popularity. 'Fundamentally, we won the election with a set of problems to solve,' he said. 'You're solving tricky problems so there are going to be bumps along the way. But on the whole, have we made progress? We've made significant progress.' It was obvious in hindsight, he said, that Labour in government would quickly become the target of people's anger about their living standards. 'People have lost trust in politics. So that moved to Labour when we went into government. We became the establishment,' he said. 'Politics has become more volatile and people have become more sceptical, so perhaps that was inevitable. 'When people feel that and see that change, that I think is how we counter the politics of the extremes, whether that's the right with Reform or the left with what the Green party is turning itself into.' Reed is one of the most experienced politicians in the cabinet – he recruited a young organiser called Morgan McSweeney during his time at Lambeth council and remains close to the man who is now his chief of staff and to Keir Starmer. Reed said he wanted the environment department to be part of tackling that discontent and that the anger and distrust went beyond issues such as the cost of living crisis and public services, and was also a disgust at the deterioration of the public realm and the environment, such as whether people felt safe taking their children to swim in the sea without swallowing sewage. He said he believed that reviving the delight people could take in rivers and seasides would go a long way towards restoring trust. 'The issue was not just the yuck factor about sewage in the water. It became a metaphor for what has happened to our country,' he said. 'So people remembered when they were younger, you could go and splash about in the sea or go in the local river and you wouldn't think twice. 'Whereas today, you take your children or grandchildren there and you worry about what contamination might be in there, or what illness they might get. And that says to you things have got worse, there's been decline, degradation and that told people a big story about our country and where it was going.' This was an issue that a Labour government could and would fix, he said. 'We've taken all of the actions necessary to stop that problem, reverse it and stop it ever happening again in just 12 months. We can turn that into a story of renewal.' He said there had been a disconnect in how politicians were able to relate to people about this frustration over the slow pace of change. 'Normal people never talk about 'delivery'. Delivery is what the postman does. We have to talk about them in the way that they talk … not just big strategies and big numbers. People need to perceive and experience this change.' In the rhetoric from Starmer and Reeves about boosting growth and housing, nature has sometimes seemed like a dirty word – the prime minister and the chancellor have both attacked environmental protections as one of the root causes of the slow progress in housebuilding. There has been a backlash from some Labour MPs on this issue – before the welfare rebellion, the biggest was 16 MPs voting for an amendment to add more protections to the planning and infrastructure bill. Reed said there were still significant protections for nature under the planning bill, where developers will pay into a nature restoration fund that will go to Natural England. 'That's a much better way than doing it patch by patch because ecosystems operate at scale,' he said. He suggested he regretted some of the more aggressive attacks on newts and bats as blockers to growth. 'I think the language ran away with itself a little bit around some of that,' he said. 'The bat tunnel [for HS2] cost £100m and didn't save any bats.' But the planning bill would, he said, 'secure the funding to genuinely support nature to recover at scale, while also promoting economic growth'. Reed has perhaps his riskiest moment on the horizon – years of mismanagement of Thames Water have put the company on the brink of collapse and facing a potential costly temporary nationalisation. Protests from farmers show no signs of dying down and there will be controversy, too, about the forthcoming land use framework, where farms in England could be incentivised to be taken entirely out of food production to make more space for nature. But Reed said the nature part of his brief is where the government can show demonstrable change: the department has been reintroducing beavers into the wild, banned bee-killing pesticides, planted millions more trees – more than in the previous 20 years – announced a new national forest, funding to restore peatlands, a ban on bottom-trawling in marine-protected areas, and passed legislation this year to ratify the high seas treaty. 'This is all in one year,' Reed said. All of that will take time for the impacts to be felt. 'As we get nearer to the next election, we'll be able to point to things that have changed in the real world that people can see. And that will give them, I hope, the confidence to come out and re-elect a Labour government.'
