Sir Keir Starmer’s first anniversary in No 10 has been marked by three notable stories. He was forced by his own MPs to withdraw his attempt to make savings in the disability benefit bill. His chancellor caused consternation in the bond markets by crying in the House of Commons. And a left-wing party has been chaotically launched by former Labour MPs.
Each of those events was laden with significance for a government that is still young, but which has struggled to communicate a sense of purpose after being elected on the vague promise of “change”.
It may have been right to pause the welfare changes, but Labour MPs blocked them mostly for the wrong reason, namely that they see a rising social security budget as a measure of moral virtue.
The right reason would have been that Labour failed to prepare for government, and so had no plan for deep reform of the incentives that are driving so many people away from the labour market and onto long-term benefits.
The party’s instincts, if unchecked, would bankrupt the country. That is why it is probably a good thing that Rachel Reeves survived her “personal issue” and stayed as chancellor. The idea of Ed Miliband at the Treasury, as was canvassed by some this week, does not inspire confidence that taxpayers’ money would be wisely spent.
Sir Keir persuaded enough of the voters last year that he would cleave to the centrist virtues of fiscal responsibility, moderation and pragmatism. It would be disastrous if he were to yield any more to the utopians in his party, whose answer to every problem is more public spending paid for by more taxes.
That said, however, taxes do need to rise further. It was naive of Sir Keir and Ms Reeves to imply that last year’s record tax increases were all that was needed to “restore stability”. They were reckless in failing to leave any buffer against adverse fiscal trends – trends that have duly emerged and so the chancellor will have to come back for more in the autumn.
This is bad, but it ought not to be disastrous. The British people are prepared to suffer pain today for the sake of gain tomorrow, but they do not like being taken for fools. The prime minister and the chancellor should now be open about the need for taxes, and about the hard choices needed to bear down on public spending, but they have to have a credible plan for a better tomorrow.
On the cost of living, which is what people care about most, the government has done some of the right things to promote growth. It has talked about rationalising planning laws to get Britain building again, and Ms Reeves has sensibly tweaked the fiscal rules to allow more public investment. Sir Keir can be justifiably proud of the three trade deals he has negotiated, with India, the United States and the European Union. However, the one big growth opportunity, namely rejoining the EU, remains in that compartment of ministerial brains marked: “What we believe but cannot say.”
There is the barest outline of a plan for the NHS, unveiled this week, which is welcome as far as it goes. But there is no plan to stop the small boats, and attempts to clear the asylum backlog seem to be going backwards.
Some of this is a communications problem. “We haven’t always told our story as well as we should,” the prime minister said in Canada last month. He then proceeded to demonstrate what he meant by giving a series of long interviews laced with self-pity in which he admitted he did not always read his speeches “properly” before he delivered them; said that he had not focused on the welfare rebellion in his own party because he was abroad; and that he had not noticed that the chancellor was in tears in the Commons because MPs were asked him questions, “bang bang bang”.
He needs to do better than this. Fortunately, for him and the country, there are some signs that he can improve. He has learned in his first year. His speaking style has become more relaxed, but he now needs to be more disciplined about explaining to people how the government is going to make their lives better.
The launch of a Corbyn-Sultana party may make this task easier for him, paradoxically, bringing into sharper focus the unrealistic prospectus offered by left-wing populists beyond a selective compassion for the suffering of the people of Gaza.
Our verdict, as Sir Keir passes the one-year milestone of his premiership, is that he is better than his party, and better than any of the alternative leaders who might theoretically replace him. Angela Rayner and Wes Streeting have their strengths, but let us see how many houses are built and how far NHS waiting lists fall before we encourage the Labour Party to imitate the Conservatives in changing prime minister every few years.
And if the choice at the next election really will be between Sir Keir and Nigel Farage, that only strengthens our conviction that Sir Keir must learn the lessons of his first year, not only to rewire government to deliver results – but to rewire his relationship with the British people.
