Starmer has entered the ‘degeneration' phase. His MPs are in despair
Shortly after the general election, The Daily T – the podcast I present with colleague Camilla Tominey – held a live event for Telegraph readers at our headquarters in central London.
It was a very jolly affair, with prosecco on hand as Camilla, Gordon Rayner, our Associate Editor, and I discussed the state of politics and answered questions. The biggest worry in the audience was that Starmer was simply Tony Blair in disguise, and was being 'run' by Labour's most successful Prime Minister in history via his think tank, the Tony Blair Institute.
This was nonsense, I suggested. Blair was far too Right-wing for Starmer.
Chatting afterwards, a number of attendees came up to me to make a point about what being 'Prime Minister of the country' meant to them.
'We have to give him a chance,' one Conservative voter said. 'He won, it's good to end the chaos, and he is the leader now. As long as he is sensible, we will see how it goes.'
This is a very British view of politics and one I wholeheartedly support. The office of Prime Minister is one to be respected, politicians need time to affect change and following the psychodramas of Boris Johnson and the rest a period of calm would be very much welcomed.
I wonder how that Conservative voter is feeling now. After a reasonable opening day speech about governing for everyone, Starmer has induced nausea. Freebie gifts revealed that it was still 'one rule for them'. With no discussion or preparation, the Winter Fuel Allowance was scrapped for all but the lowest paid pensioners. A £22 billion 'black hole' appeared to come as a shock to the Chancellor despite every sensible analyst saying before the election that the public finances were shot. The Budget raised taxes after Labour promises that it would not.
'I need to fix the foundations,' Rachel Reeves told voters as the polls started slipping. Starmer agreed. 'Growth' was everything and 'tough Labour' would not be indulging in any U-turns. Even that gargantuan and ever-increasing benefits bill would be tackled.
Being controversial can have a point in politics – as long as you stick to the course. Starmer has done the opposite, the lead character in a political tragedy about a man who wanted to be king but did not know why. The PM has confused noise from opponents, backbenchers and pressure groups with the very different purpose of running the country.
The result has been strategic chaos – a disaster for anyone residing in Number 10. Where once he was positive about the effects of immigration, now he is talking about 'an island of strangers'. Where the cuts to the Winter Fuel Allowance were an absolute necessity – now they will be at least partially reversed (although when and by how much will be a political running sore for months to come). The two child benefit cap is likely to be lifted. The UK will be in and not in the European Union.
I speak to many senior Labour figures every week. They pinpoint the disastrous local elections as the moment Starmer buckled afresh, casting around in desperation for anything that might shift momentum. A caucus of Red Wall Labour MPs, led by Jo White, demanded changes, particularly to disability benefit cuts. 'We will not budge,' Downing Street insisted, exactly as they had done over the Winter Fuel Allowance. Few believe that position will hold.
Negative briefings are starting to swirl around Morgan McSweeney, Starmer's chief of staff. Enemies point out, and there are many, that the 'hard choices' approach has given way too easily to 'I'll U-turn if you want me to'. Policies that MPs expended a lot of energy defending are now being abandoned, the quickest way to lose faith on the back benches. Nearly 200 Labour councillors lost their jobs in the May elections, a rich seam of angry activists who blame the man at the top.
Starmer and Sweeney go back, to the dark days of the Hartlepool by-election loss in 2021 when Labour was trounced by the Conservatives. Starmer considered quitting and outsourced much of his political thinking to McSweeney, who picked him up and dusted him off. The Corbyn-lite approach that had won the PM the Labour leadership was jettisoned and 'sensible Starmer' took its place, the dry technocrat who would focus on what works.
Labour MPs of the modernising tendency fear Corbyn-lite is creeping back. Adrift in a sea of collapsing personal ratings, Starmer is trying his own form of 'back to basics' – the basics of 'all will have jam' Left wing economics.
'We have no idea who is driving the bus,' said one well placed Labour figure on the chopping and changing at the centre. 'It is not about jam today or jam tomorrow. With no growth there is no jam.'
Reeves is in an increasingly precarious position. She marched into the gunfire with a degree of political bravery, insisting that her decisions had to be taken to re-energise the economy.
My Treasury sources insist there are glimmers of hope that the strategy is working. The first three months of the year saw growth above estimates. Business confidence has started to pick up. In the spending review on June 11, the Chancellor will announce billions of pounds in capital investment in transport hubs, energy, schools, hospitals and research and development. These are the right policies.
The PM is striding in the opposite direction, creating a tension between Number 10 and Number 11 that never augurs well for good government. When Labour published its manifesto in 2024, the only person beyond Starmer himself to appear regularly in the glossy photographs was Reeves. Now it would be Angela Rayner, who is noisily demanding more tax rises.
Like grief, governments travel through five phases. Euphoria, honeymoon, stability, degeneration, failure.
Starmer has managed to leap-frog the first three and has entered 'degeneration' well before the first anniversary of a victory which gave him a 171 seat majority. Even his allies look on baffled, failing to understand that government is difficult, that you cannot gyrate between policy positions and expect appalling poll numbers to improve. Leading requires courage, vision and an ability to communicate. Consistency is the prosaic truth that the Prime Minister has failed to grasp.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
The AI Era Enters Its Sovereign Phase
Generative AI adoption started in late 2022 with public adoption of models like ChatGPT and Llama. As it drives towards its next phase of value creation with reasoning, also referred to as agentic AI, it has recently crossed the boundary from a consumer-centric application into an enterprise application. Right on the heels of this adoption is also another phase of value creation – Sovereign AI. What Is Sovereign AI? Sovereign AI refers to artificial intelligence that is developed, maintained, and controlled within a specific nation's or organization's jurisdiction, ensuring independence from external influences. This artificial intelligence is designed to align with local regulations, ethical standards, and strategic priorities, allowing governments and enterprises to maintain autonomy over their AI-driven operations. The Opportunity To Reign Supreme (Or At Least Be At The Front Of The Pack) Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang recently stated that 'AI is now an essential form of national infrastructure – just like energy, telecommunications and the internet.' Indeed, many leading countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, China, France, Denmark and the United Arab Emirates have launched sovereign AI initiatives. Stargate is an example of such an initiative from the United States. Additionally, leading AI enablers like Nvidia and OpenAI, have initiatives targeted specifically at helping entities establish their own sovereign AI capabilities. Sovereign AI is particularly crucial in areas like national security, defense, and critical infrastructure, where reliance on foreign AI models could pose risks related to data privacy, cybersecurity, or geopolitical dependencies. By building and maintaining custom AI capabilities, nations and organizations can safeguard their technological sovereignty while fostering innovation tailored to their unique needs. Moving Forward With Sovereign AI While this is a gross oversimplification of how complicated this task is for national leaders to undertake, the following are some critical areas that must be addressed in embarking on the sovereign AI journey: To this end, AI enablers like Nvidia and leading countries such as France have started to organize events. For example, at the upcoming Viva Technology event in Paris this coming June, Jensen Huang and Nvidia have organized a dedicated GTC event where interested parties can learn more. As mentioned earlier, it is important to keep in mind that sovereign AI isn't necessarily limited to national entities. Any sufficiently capable entity, whether they be nations, companies, organizations or universities interested in securing their own AI systems and capabilities from data curation and model creation to specified and focused outcomes can take advantage of sovereign AI.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Israel launches strikes on weapons in Syria
Israel said it had launched strikes on weapons belonging to Syria, hours after reports that two projectiles had been fired from Syria into Israel on Tuesday. The Israeli strikes on southern Syria caused "significant human and material losses", Syria's foreign ministry said, adding that Israel was "trying to destabilise the region". Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz said he held Syrian interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa responsible for the projectiles launched into Israel. Despite recent indirect talks to ease tensions between the two countries, Israel has stepped up attacks on targets in Syria since Sharaa led a rebel offensive that overthrew Bashar al-Assad's regime in December 2024. "Violent explosions shook southern Syria, notably the town of Quneitra and the Daraa region, following Israeli aerial strikes," said the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights, a UK-based monitoring group. In a statement, Syria's foreign ministry said: "This escalation constitutes a blatant violation of Syrian sovereignty and aggravates tensions in the region. "Syria has never been and will never be a threat to anyone in the region." It was unclear how many people were killed or injured in Israel's strikes. Israel said the strikes came after two projectiles launched from Syria landed in open areas of the country, causing no injuries. Israeli media reported that the strikes were the first launched from Syria since the fall of the Bashar al-Assad regime. It was not immediately clear who fired the projectiles. "We consider the president of Syria directly responsible for any threat and fire toward the State of Israel," Katz said. Syria's foreign ministry said reports of the launches from inside Syria "have not been verified yet". When the Assad regime was deposed, Israel launched a wave of attacks to degrade Syrian military infrastructure. It has also encouraged the expansion of settlements in the occupied Golan Heights, territory which Israel seized from Syria in 1976 and is considered illegally occupied under international law. Last month, US President Donald Trump announced plans to lift decade-old sanctions on Syria, imposed in response to atrocities committed by forces loyal to Assad during a 13-year civil war. During that conflict, more than 600,000 people were killed and 12 million others were forced from their homes. Last month, Israel bombed an area near Syria's presidential palace in Damascus, a strike which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said was a "clear message" that it would "not allow the deployment of forces south of Damascus". UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said the bombing was a "violation of Syria's sovereignty".
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Labour is cosying up to China after years of rollercoaster relations
The sprawling city of Chongqing in southwestern China is an incredible sight. Built on mountainous terrain and crisscrossed by rivers, it is connected by vast elevated roads. Trains even run through some buildings. TikTokers have begun documenting their commutes in the striking urban architecture, generating millions of likes and much hype. But it is also where, on a somewhat quieter trip, mayors and their deputies from the UK recently visited - the largest British civic delegation to visit the country in modern history. The whole trip, which took place in March, received substantial Chinese media coverage, despite flying more under the radar in the UK. The impression it left on some of the politicians who travelled there was vast. "[The city is] what happens if you take the planning department and just say 'yes' to everything," reflects Howard Dawber, deputy London mayor for business. "It's just amazing." The group travelled to southern Chinese cities, spoke to Chinese mayors and met Chinese tech giants. So impressed was one deputy mayor that, on returning home, they bought a mobile phone from Chinese brand Honor (a stark contrast from the days the UK banned Huawei technology from its 5G networks, just a few years ago). Roughly half-a-dozen deals were signed on the back of the trip. The West Midlands, for example, agreed to establish a new UK headquarters in Birmingham for Chinese energy company EcoFlow. But the visit was as much about diplomacy as it was trade, says East Midlands deputy mayor Nadine Peatfield, who attended. "There was a real hunger and appetite to rekindle those relationships." To some, it was reminiscent of the "golden era" of UK-China relations, a time when then-Prime Minister David Cameron and Chinese President Xi Jinping shared a basket of fish and chips and a pint. Those days have long felt far away. Political ties with China deteriorated under former UK Conservative Prime Ministers Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss. The last UK prime minister to visit China was Theresa May, in 2018. But the recent delegation - and the talk of Sir Keir Starmer possibly visiting China later this year - suggests a turning point in relations. But to what greater intent? The course correction seemed to begin with the closed-door meeting between Sir Keir and Chinese President Xi in Brazil last November. The prime minister signalled that Britain would look to cooperate with China on climate change and business. Since then, Labour's cautious pursuit of China has primarily focused on the potential financial upsides. In January, Chancellor Rachel Reeves co-chaired the first UK-China economic summit since 2019, in Beijing. Defending her trip, she said: "Choosing not to engage with China is no choice at all." Reeves claimed re-engagement with China could boost the UK economy by £1bn, with agreements worth £600m to the UK over the next five years — partially achieved through lifting barriers that restrict exports to China. Soon after, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband resumed formal climate talks with China. Miliband said it would be "negligence" to future generations not to have dialogue with the country, given it is the world's biggest carbon emitter. Labour simply describes its approach as "grown-up". But it all appears to be a marked shift from the last decade of UK-China relations. During the so-called "golden era", from 2010, the UK's policy towards China was dominated by the Treasury, focusing on economic opportunities and appearing to cast almost all other issues, including human rights or security, aside. By September 2023, however, Rishi Sunak said he was "acutely aware of the particular threat to our open and democratic way of life" posed by China. Labour claimed in its manifesto that it would bring a "long-term and strategic approach". China has a near monopoly on extracting and refining rare earth minerals, which are critical to manufacturing many high-tech and green products. For example, car batteries are often reliant on lithium, while indium is a rare metal used for touch screens. This makes China a vital link in global supply chains. "China's influence is likely to continue to grow substantially globally, especially with the US starting to turn inwards," says Dr William Matthews, a China specialist at Chatham House think tank. "The world will become more Chinese, and whilst that is difficult for any Western government, there needs to be sensible engagement from the get-go." Andrew Cainey, a director of the UK National Committee on China, an educational non-profit organisation, says: "China has changed a lot since the Covid-19 pandemic. To have elected officials not having seen it, it's a no brainer for them to get back on the ground". Certainly many in the UK's China-watching community believe that contact is an essential condition to gain a clearer-eyed view of the opportunities posed by China, but also the challenges. The opportunities, some experts say, are largely economic, climate and education-related. Or as Kerry Brown, Professor of Chinese Studies at King's College London, puts it: "China is producing information, analysis and ways of doing things that we can learn from". He points to the intellectual, technological, AI, and life sciences opportunities. Not engaging with China would be to ignore the realities of geopolitics in the 21st century, in Dr Matthew's view, given that it is the world's second largest economy. However he also believes that engagement comes with certain risks. But Charles Parton, who spent 22 years of his diplomatic career working in or on China, raises questions about the UK's economic and national security. For example, the government is reportedly weighing up proposals for a Chinese company to supply wind turbines for an offshore windfarm in the North Sea. Mr Parton warns against allowing China access to the national grid: "It wouldn't be difficult in a time of high tension to say, 'by the way, we can turn off all your wind farms'". But earlier this year, the China Chamber of Commerce to the EU issued a statement expressing concern over the "politicisation" of deals between wind developers in Europe and Chinese turbine suppliers. Xi's real test is not Trump's trade war North and South Korea are in an underground war - Kim Jong Un might now be winning The Conservative Party faces problems - is its leader one of them? James Sullivan, director of Cyber and Tech at defence think tank Rusi, notes there are also some questions around cyberspace. "China's activities in cyberspace appear to be more strategically and politically focused compared to previous opportunistic activities," he says. As for defence, the UK's recently published defence review describes China as a "sophisticated and persistent challenge", with Chinese technology and its proliferation to other countries "already a leading challenge for the UK". Ken McCallum, MI5 director general, meanwhile, has previously warned of a sustained campaign on an "epic scale" of Chinese espionage abroad. But Prof Brown pushes back on some concerns about espionage, saying some media narratives about this are a "fairytale". Beijing has always dismissed accusations of espionage as attempts to "smear" China. Sir Keir and his team will no doubt be closely monitoring how this is all viewed by Washington DC. Last month, President Donald Trump's trade advisor Peter Navarro described Britain as "an all too compliant servant of Communist China", urging the UK against deepening economic ties. "When it comes to foreign policy towards China, America's influence on policy will be quite substantive compared with say continental Europe," says Dr Yu Jie of China Foresight at LSE IDEAS think tank. Most analysts I speak to in both the UK and China are still clear on the need for the two countries to get back in the same room, even if they differ on where to draw the line: in which areas should Westminster cooperate and where should it stay clear. These red lines have not yet been drawn, and experts say that without some kind of playbook, it is difficult for businesses and elected officials to know how to engage. "You can only keep firefighting specific issues for so long without developing a systematic plan," warns Mr Cainey. Certain thorny issues have arisen, including Chinese investments in the UK. For example in April when the government seized control of British Steel from its former Chinese owner Jingye, to prevent it from being closed down, Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds admitted that he would "look at a Chinese firm in a different way" when considering investment in the UK steel industry. China's foreign ministry spokesperson, Lin Jian, warned that Labour should avoid "linking it to security issues, so as not to impact the confidence of Chinese enterprises in going to the UK". After Starmer met Xi last year, he said the government's approach would be "rooted in the national interests of the UK", but acknowledged areas of disagreement with China, including on human rights, Taiwan and Russia's war in Ukraine. Securing the release of pro-democracy activist and British citizen Jimmy Lai from a Hong Kong prison is, he has said, a "priority" for the government. Labour's manifesto broadly pledged: "We will cooperate where we can, compete where we need to, and challenge where we must." What is still lacking, however, is the fine print. Asked about the British government's longer-term strategy, Mr Parton replied: "No.10 doesn't have a strategy." He tells me he has some specific advice: "Go with your eyes open," he says. "But have a clear idea of what needs protecting, and a willingness to take some short-term financial hits to protect long-term national security." Labour has suggested that some clarity on their approach will be provided through the delayed China "audit", a cross-government exercise launched last year, which will review the UK's relations with China. The audit is due to be published this month, but many doubt that it will resolve matters. "If we see a visit from Starmer to Beijing, that will be an indication that the two sides have actually agreed with something, and that they would like to change and improve their bilateral relationship," says Dr Yu. But many people in Westminster remain China-sceptic. And even if the audit helps Britain better define what it wants out of its relationship with China, the question remains, do MPs and businesses have the China-related expertise to get the best out of it? According to Ruby Osman, China analyst at the Tony Blair Institute, there is an urgent need to build the UK's China capabilities in a more holistic way, focusing on diversifying the UK's points of contact with China. "If we want to be in a position where we are not just listening to what Beijing and Washington want, there needs to be investment in the talent pipeline coming into government, but also think tanks and businesses who work with China," she argues. And if that's the case, then irrespective of whether closer ties with China is viewed as a security threat, an economic opportunity, or something in between, the UK might be in a better position to engage with the country. Top image credit: PA BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.
