In spite of the spasmodic make-busy activity by cabinet ministers since parliament rose, it is safe to say that we are now into the summer holiday period, when even the most self-promoting politicians may contrive to stay out of our faces for the next few weeks.
It is an opportune moment then to look back on the first year of this Labour government, to review what has happened and to trace what patterns are emerging from the activities of the UK’s new political masters.
By common consent, things have not gone well for Sir Keir Starmer’s government. No government in possession of a substantial majority can claim otherwise when after just twelve months it finds itself stuck in second place behind an upstart new party, not just in opinion polls but in “real” local elections and a Westminster by-election.
Of course a lot may change in the four years left until the last possible general election but Sir Keir Starmer is not in a happy place. One analysis which is growing in popularity is that the electorate has lost faith in both traditional parties of government. The Conservatives comprehensively trashed themselves by leaving the country feeling poorer and broken after their fourteen years in power. Now Labour has failed to change things for the better, or even generate a sense of hope, for all the “Change” promised during its recent successful election bid.
The centre is not holding, the argument goes, so the voters are tempted to the extremes – Reform UK on the right, and on the left the Greens, Moslem independents and, quite possibly, Jeremy Corbyn’s new party. All of whom enjoyed some success getting MPs elected in 2024.
The flaw in this way of thinking is that Sir Keir Starmer is no centrist. He has turned out to be the most divisive political leader of modern times. He may flip around and execute U-turns but he is always sanctimoniously convinced that he’s right, whatever his latest position, and that his opponents are wrong.
He is more of a senior barrister than a politician – great at taking a side – for the prosecution one week the defence the next – but utterly incapable of bringing the nation together by generating harmony.
Tony Blair engagingly welcomed everyone into New Labour’s “big tent”. Even before becoming Prime Minister, David Cameron pleaded: “We are in this together”. Starmer’s tactic has been to set sections of the public against each other. Hostility begets polarisation.
This government’s original sin was the commitment not to use the main levers of taxation, income tax, VAT or employee’s national insurance. “Working people” were infantilised, told that they would be looked after, but would not have to play a part directly in repairing the economy.
During the campaign, Labour politicians treated any questions about their tax intentions as “gotchas”, rather than informed enquiries from interviewers who could see plainly the state of the national finances. Consequently, when Labour came into power and belatedly discovered “black holes”, it had already boxed itself out of options to do anything major to fill them up.
Instead, revenue raids were attempted against interest groups who were portrayed as somehow undeserving recipients of Treasury generosity.
Non-doms, users of private education, farmers, business, are obvious targets for a dogmatic socialist government; targeting them played to the instincts of many in the Labour party. Although the measures are unlikely to generate the projected income, much needed by the Exchequer.
Once fired-up on the idea of fiscal goodies and baddies, there was no way that Labour MPs were going to tolerate cuts aimed at those they regard as their clients – pensioners and benefit claimants. Inevitably, demands for a wealth tax are mounting on the Labour side, in spite of its proven failure in other countries.
Just this week, the petty divisiveness continued. Civil service internships are to be awarded only to those from underprivileged backgrounds. Social engineering is deemed more important than any notion of merit.
The Prime Minister has adopted the same self-defeating black and white approach to foreign policy. He chose to “kiss the ass” of Donald Trump repeatedly, when others, including Von der Leyen of the EU, Carney of Canada, and Japan have secured similar “deals”, while preserving their dignity. There is no indication that Starmer’s friendship with the president has resulted in any influence over his actions.
To his credit, Sir Keir has continued the policy of his Conservative predecessors of standing staunchly behind Ukraine. But he has chosen not to explain to the nation why this is so necessary. A prime minister’s “first duty” may be to protect the nation but he will find it a lot easier to do so if the electorate is warned of the clear and present danger from Putin’s Russia. Most of the promised increase in defence spending remains unfunded. The portion which is funded has come from the foreign aid budget, even though Labour usually sees this as the other edge of the same blade, and the most appealing aspect of foreign interventionism. The impression is left that the Prime Minister lacks strong feelings on these existential questions.
The same goes for Starmer on immigration and Israel/Gaza. For all his talk of smashing the gangs, the boats have not been stopped. On the wider questions of immigration, it is unclear what the prime minister thinks about it. He floated and then withdrew a suggestion that societal diversity could result in an “island of strangers”. In the process, he merely fanned the flames of argument on both sides, rather than tamping down the dangers.
British leadership has been lacking on the Middle East as well. In truth, the UK has scant influence beyond the attitudes it strikes in international diplomacy. For many months, the government has sensibly worked with allied governments and tension is clearly mounting in the face of the horrific situation in Gaza. Starmer is also under intense political pressure from pro-Palestinians within the Labour party and outside it. The majority of UN members already favour lip service to Palestinian statehood – although this seems ever further from becoming a reality. Allies including France and Canada also expressed the intention of recognising Palestinian statehood. Only the UK government did it so ineptly, demanding an unconditional ceasefire from Israel while laying down no conditions on Hamas, not even a formal request that they release the remaining Israeli hostages.
No-one has been satisfied by the prime minister’s shift of position, except for Hamas which responded by pledging no ceasefire on its side until a Palestinian state is established. Starmer’s new stance is too little, too late for pro-Palestinian factions, and an unhelpful complication to those looking for a more balanced settlement.
Keir Starmer won a loveless landslide, garnering barely a third of votes cast. He inherited a country in dire straits, with decaying public services and no easy sources of ready funds to balance the books. None of that was his fault. Unfortunately this prime minister has yet to rise to the task of finding a narrative to unite the nation and lead it forward. At least he still has some time on his side.
This is a depressing column with which to end my contributions to Reaction. We have decided to close the website as currently produced by the end of this week. I thank all of you for reading my columns on this site over the years. Please look out for my work elsewhere, including on my own personal Substack.