I’m beginning to see how this Labour Government will fall apart

Andy Davey cartoon
Andy Davey cartoon

Like the gold-headed colossus of King Nebuchadnezzar’s dreams, Sir Keir Starmer is a giant with feet of clay. His gargantuan parliamentary majority was obtained on a third of the vote with a depressed turnout, and he is already engendering much buyers’ remorse. He has squandered his honeymoon, and is proving so inept at politics that, a mere two months after his historic triumph, there is now reason to doubt that he will last more than one term in office.

His lacklustre communication skills mean that he is failing to persuade his own side, let alone anybody else; he sounds too Left-wing to the Right, and too Right-wing to the Left. A grey, pseudo-managerialist figure, an accidental prime minister in the mould of Theresa May, there is no trap Starmer doesn’t plunge into headfirst. Rather than providing inspirational, optimistic leadership, he has crushed spirits with his apocalyptic assessment of the state of Britain and cartoonish negativity.

His stoking of speculation about tax increases at the Budget, a clumsy attempt at managing expectations, has only raised fears that Labour has reverted to the most atavistic socialism. He claims to be taking “difficult but necessary decisions”, but many are questioning whether the nasties may in fact be optional. No wonder his approval ratings are plunging.

Rachel Reeves, his Chancellor, has allowed herself to be defined by the means-testing of pensioner winter fuel payments, an incendiary policy foisted on her by a Treasury she made the error of trusting. Reeves appeared unprepared for the resulting furore, reminiscent of the omnishambles, “pasty tax” budget of 2012, unable even to make the case that millionaire pensioners do not need handouts.

To be clear: I support ditching the universal winter fuel payment. But it should be done for the right reasons – to save money, not to buy off the unions – with the right safeguards for the needy, and Labour shouldn’t have claimed there were “no plans” to scrap it.

There is a more sophisticated, fiscally powerful alternative: fold the winter fuel payment into the state pension, then peg this new, enhanced pension to the growth in median wages, ditching the triple lock and explaining that, as a matter of fairness, workers and pensioners would see their incomes grow in lockstep in perpetuity. This should be accompanied by measures to increase retirement savings.

Instead, we get a form of fake sado-austerity, whereby Labour pretends that hurting the groups it hates is necessary to protect the public finances. The Government has swallowed its own propaganda, convincing itself that parents who educate their children privately are all proto-oligarchs who can easily afford an extra 20 per cent in VAT and the removal of business rates relief. In reality, hundreds of thousands of families that scrimp and save will never forgive Starmer for singling them out for such a revolting treatment.

Even more remarkably, Labour has failed to pin the blame for the early release of prisoners onto the Tories: in a shocking set of images, voters have seen ex-inmates thanking Starmer for setting them free, pledging to vote Labour, cracking open champagne bottles and even being picked up by a Lamborghini. If Starmer really cared, why not push through emergency legislation designating a dozen sites for new prisons, overriding all planning and other objections? Clearly, his priorities are elsewhere.

Labour portrayed itself as a government of “sensibles”, a team of uber-competent, boring technocrats who would govern slightly to the Left of the Tories. They have turned out to be neither experts, nor truly in control, nor politically moderate, nor especially sensible. They have few solutions to Britain’s pathologies, and their agenda is riddled with contradictions.

Reeves claims to believe in growth, and rightly wants to boost housebuilding, but her plans to tax capital, to hammer investors, to bolster marginal tax rates, to eradicate non-doms, and to tie business up in red tape will cancel out any good from her planning reforms.

Equally confusingly, Reeves espouses faux-austerity, claiming she was elected “first and foremost” to sort out the public finances. That is nonsense: nobody voted Labour to balance the books, and the public finances she inherited were in a tolerable state. She is pretending to be a fiscal conservative, but wants to take spending and taxation to even higher record levels of GDP. Her new taxes, many of which have yet to be announced, are better described as sadism dressed up as austerity and class warfare camouflaged as prudence.

Instead of pretending that hitting private schools is the only way to raise funds for state schools, or scrapping winter fuel payments is necessary to prevent a run on the pound, the Government should be more honest about its motivations. These seemingly include taking revenge on older voters, many of whom supported Brexit, the Tories and Reform; ensuring that as many private schools as possible shut; and, rather than reforming the NHS or welfare, pouring billions into our supposedly “under-invested” state.

Labour’s agenda is unravelling in other ways. Germany has announced tighter border controls; France’s new prime minister, Michel Barnier, has previously called for an extended period of zero net immigration. More migrants might head to Britain instead; Labour’s lack of any kind of plan or desire to reduce immigration is unsustainable. Europe’s Right-wards shift, a product of its existential failure on growth, innovation, and migration, has dashed any real hope of Labour ever rejoining the EU. When the penny finally drops, this will deal the British Left a profound psychological blow.

A Trump victory, still possible despite his woeful performance at the debate, would be an even greater disaster for Starmer. Trump would torpedo net zero and global tax harmonisation. He would force greater defence spending, derailing Reeves’ sums, and punish – or even sanction – Britain for our despicably anti-Israel policies. He would unleash Wall Street, sucking talent and capital from the City of London.

If the Tories elect the right leader, there is now a plausible scenario under which Labour slumps – sooner rather than later – to second place in the polls. Starmer’s majority is gigantic, enough to withstand almost any rebellion. But the speed at which his Government is falling from grace means that politics could enter its next period of volatility more quickly than anybody expected.