In less than 48 hours the Labour administration faces its greatest challenge – the 2024/25 budget. The public reaction may determine the future of the the prime minister. He owns this budget even more than the Chancellor.
Since being elected in July, Starmer hasn’t set the world alight.
But that was something voters factored in before the election. The Labour victory wasn’t won through inspiration from the leader or the party’s campaign but from exasperation with Tory incompetence, cronyism and grift.
♦Subscriber Exclusive: Ask our tax expert an Autumn Budget question
Thankfully Starmer isn’t a flash, bang, wallop sort of politician.
He’s earnest but lacks warmth. Media performances are definitely not a strong point.
Evidence suggests the British public could forgo those deficiencies in exchange for his straightforwardness, doggedness and sincerity. The electorate had their fill of Johnson and Truss-type chicanery and double-speak.
But now the very qualities which carried Starmer into office are being questioned.
There was no great sophistication or strategy behind the Labour campaign for change. All that was needed for victory was the constant assurance in the Conservative Party’s habit of cannibalising its own. Sunak and co didn’t disappoint.
The public wanted change and the only serious alternative to creating a stable government was Labour. Fear of coalitions runs deep in UK.
After all the sizzle and no steak from the Tories, Labour offered a wearisome electorate the promise of jam today, tomorrow and the day after. Only problem was when they got the keys to the Treasury, the cupboard was bare.
The government was quick to blame the Tories for this dreadful state of financial affairs and it was straight out of the Cameron playbook (who blamed Labour for the mess inherited in 2010).
The plan was short-term pain for long-term gain, as there was now a £22.5bn black hole to fill.
The public don’t seem to be buying into political finger-pointing in 2024. They are at best sceptical and at worst unconvinced. Voters see billions going towards Ukraine and there’s an element who believe charity begins at home. Since Brexit, Britain is a diminished, demoralised, introspective nation.
There have been positives. The riots were dealt with firmly and justice was swift. A rail-nationalising bill has been tabled. A Green Energy Wealth Fund has been set up. Planning reform is being accelerated, workers are getting more rights and housing plans are ambitious.
The problem is none of this stuff is eye-catching enough and all of it takes a long time to trickle down to where the public not only see it, but feel it too.
Whilst there’s a whopping Labour majority in the House of Commons, much of it is built on sand, as the margins of victory in many seats are wafer-thin. At least Labour 30/40 candidates never expected to win at all.
The ‘first 100 days’ measurement of any administration is really a bit of a media invention. No-one serious expects a new government to change everything in such a short period of time.
Yet the first 100 days in office does test the public appetite for more of the same. There’s an expectation of a few rainbows alongside realism.
Labour infighting was a self-inflicted goal. Starmer should have grappled with it.
The donations for clothes and stuff, even if allowed, showed poor judgement.
Defending indefensible actions by saying the Tories did worse things is pretty lame. The penalty for stealing a sheep and a lamb is the same.
In fairness, time is on the government side. On the other hand, public opinion on the prime minister may not be.
Reform is barking at Labour’s heels and making a lot of noise which can’t be ignored.
The first budget is now a litmus test for the government. Despite the woes of Chancellor Reeves in balancing the books, the public will want to feel better.
The backlash over the winter fuel allowance demonstrates the volatility of the British electorate.