The pictures of a distraught Rachel Reeves on the government benches during Prime Minister’s Questions will cruelly and unfairly (for the Chancellor had had a personal shock before entering the chamber) come to symbolise the disarray of Keir Starmer’s government less than a year into office.
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 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 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 it. 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 one million people or, in this case, £4500 a year for nearly one 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 rigours 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 it.
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, and 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 the Labour government are doing getting any coverage in the media. The truly popular policies are being implemented 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 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?]
Content from our partners
Related
