
Starmer's power is propped up on borrowed votes. Here's why I won't be lending mine next time…
When Labour is in power, it's customary for the left wing to spend much of its time grousing about how badly it's doing, whereas those on the right have remained staunchly silent about criticism of its leadership, no matter how outwardly deranged.
Where then, to start on Keir Starmer 's Labour, which in its much-touted plans to be the Grown-Ups coming to clear up the British Playroom after the Big Argument, now seems more determined to cosplay as Nigel Farage than to take advantage of its massive majority and put some actual Labour policies in place.
As with many people staggered by the Conservatives' plunge into self-destruction, I did what I could to avoid them getting into power again. I lent my vote to Labour. Unlike many people, my vote made little difference. My constituency, previously Streatham, was Conservative for 74 years until turning resolutely Labour in 1992.
Where Labour should not be complacent is that my vote, as with those of many who embraced tactical voting came from fear. The prospect of another five years of political sleaze made me feel quite unwell. However, I had also hoped that things could only get better, as I dimly remembered from school.
As was the case in 1997 a 2024 vote for Labour was a vote for hope. Yet all I have seen since Labour came to power is shocking. A government whose only inspiration for the British public is repeated epithets about the Conservatives' 14 years in power and the ensuing black hole.
I had hoped for bold steps towards helping the roots of Britain's problems: reinvigorating youth clubs and SureStart centres so young people didn't turn to gangs and online influencers for connection, and supporting parents so future generations felt confident in affording to have children. I'd certainly hoped for appreciation of the workers from abroad who keep our health and care sectors running because successive governments are apparently too miserly to pay their workers properly.
Instead, splendid: three more prisons to be built rather than anything positive to reduce poverty, increase opportunity and reduce reoffending. Well done Labour! This isn't quite "40 new hospitals" territory, but it feels awfully close. A conversation around immigration that is now in its fourth day of focusing on Starmer's inflammatory language and apparent denigration of every migrant in the UK, rather than finding solutions.
Labour has been by no means alone in its inaction on Israel's enforced famine of Gaza, but for a generation raised on Blue Peter coverage of Bosnia and genocide in Rwanda, its silence has said volumes. And it's not just the very young that Labour is alienating, it's millennials and Gen X. Recent decisions on PIP, and disability benefits more widely, have seemed incomprehensible if not downright cruel. Labour seems to be chasing some mythical voter who doesn't exist, rather than listening to those it has.
There is the odd flicker of the positivity and capability so many of us hoped for: its trade deals with the US and India, Ukraine, and how Starmer has stepped up to lead the Coalition of the Willing and support Ukraine. Wes Streeting's immediate deal with the junior doctors was impressive, but his capitulation to the vocal minority on trans healthcare simply baffling. There is arguably little more British than letting people be who they are. And by also denigrating migrants, LGBT+ people, and women – who will inevitably have to pick up the slack when care companies cannot afford to pay for British workers and hike prices accordingly – this feels like a very un-British Labour Party.
Most shamingly of all is the news that the UK's reputation as Europe's leading country on LGBT+ human rights is gone. In 2015, we were top with 86 per cent. This week, we have dropped to 46 per cent – in no small part thanks to baffling white noise nonsense around loos and trans people, which successive polls show Britain at large doesn't care about in the slightest. Nigel Farage and his policy-free pot-stirring – rightly called out by the otherwise ghastly Rupert Lowe, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day – are not where the UK should be heading. Labour has four years until the next general election. Why on earth isn't it promoting forward-thinking policies and communicating to the public with even a modicum of skill? Why isn't it at least trying to make a positive difference to the country's lives, rather than dealing in the populist fear wafting across the ocean from the USA.
As the local elections showed, Reform voters won't be won over by mystifying attempts to out-light blue the light blue. Reform continues to lead Labour in the polls, by five points this week, and eight points last week. A new poll by Survation finds voting intention for Reform at 30 per cent. Meanwhile, those who held their nose for Labour previously are joining the floods heading to the Lib Dems and the Greens.
Reform voters do not want Labour. And there are other parties for Labour votes to join, however much Starmer and his team refuse to believe it. In 2025, the Conservative Party is almost annihilated. Unless the government looks to its voters, whether lifelong or borrowed, by 2029 Labour may join it in the wreckage.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Fears of tent cities as rough sleeping is decriminalised in end to 200-year-old law
Tent cities could pop up across the UK as rough sleeping is decriminalised, critics of the policy say. Ministers have announced plans to repeal the Vagrancy Act by next spring, meaning it will no longer be an offence to sleep on pavements. But there are fears scrapping the 200-year-old law despite rising numbers of the homeless will mean more people camping on the streets. Announcing the changes, Angela Rayner said she was 'drawing a line under nearly two centuries of injustice towards some of the most vulnerable in society'. The Housing Secretary pledged to increase funding for homelessness services with an extra £233million this financial year to provide alternatives to rough sleeping. She said: 'No one should ever be criminalised simply for sleeping rough and by scrapping this cruel and outdated law, we are making sure that can never happen again.' Introduced in 1824 to tackle a homelessness crisis after the Industrial Revolution, the law was designed to punish 'idle and disorderly persons, and rogues and vagabonds'. Most parts of the act have been repealed but some remain in force in England and Wales to enable police to move on rough sleepers rather than prosecute them. Homeless charities called the move a 'landmark moment' they had long called for. However, there were concerns that the move could lead to more people sleeping on streets and the creation of 'tent cities'. The charity Shelter estimates there are 326,000 people, including 161,500 children, in England who are homeless, a 14 per cent increase on the previous year. This has caused camps to pop up in several cities, including on Park Lane in central London. Figures published in April showed the total number sleeping rough in the capital – those who spend at least one night on the streets – was 4,427 for the three months to March 2025, which was a near 8 per cent increase from 4,118 for the same quarter last year. The numbers classed as living on the streets had risen by 38 per cent year-on-year to 706 from 511. The Government said 'targeted measures will ensure police have the powers they need to keep communities safe – filling the gap left over by removing previous powers'. These will be new offences of facilitating begging for gain and trespassing with the intention of committing a crime and will be brought in through amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill. Ministers said this will ensure organised begging – often by criminal gangs – remains an offence, meaning it is unlawful for anyone to organise others to beg. Ms Rayner's department said spending on homeless services would hit nearly £1billion this financial year. Kevin Hollinrake, Tory communities spokesman, said: 'Labour's approach will result in a pavement free-for-all in our towns and cities. They just don't understand or care how this affects law-abiding local residents and the impact it has on their pride of place.' Chris Philp, the Tory home affairs spokesman, told the Telegraph: 'This move risks turning British cities into a version of San Francisco, which has become overrun by encampments of homeless people.


Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
How can ‘sanction' mean two opposing things?
Sir Keir Starmer said 'he could 'not imagine' the circumstances in which he would sanction a new referendum' on Scottish independence, the Times reported the other day. The Mirror said Amazon 'has agreed to sanction businesses that boost their star ratings with bogus reviews'. So we find sanction being used with completely opposite meanings: 'give permission' and 'enact a penalty to enforce obedience to a law'. The latter sense was extended after the first world war to cover economic or military action against a state as a coercive measure. That is the use we daily find applied to action, or the lack of it, against Russia. The diverging meanings both go back to the Latin noun sanctio, deriving from the verb sancire 'to render sacred', hence 'inviolable'. Such a sanctio came to mean a decree, as in that obscure beast of history, the pragmatic sanction, which looks neither pragmatic or like a sanction. The phrase had a good run for its money, though, labelling a decree attributed to St Louis of France against the Papacy in 1268 and a decree by Charles III of Spain in 1759, granting the crown of the Two Sicilies to his son. I would describe as an anxiety dream the thought of having to write about either. Here, pragmatic meant 'to do with affairs of state', a development of the ancient Greek word that, via Latin, also gives us practical. In English pragmatic acquired the meaning 'practical' only in the mid 19th century, allowing the Americans C.S. Peirce and William James to harness pragmatism to describe a kind of philosophy. As for sanction, it is now also deployed to label the removal or reduction of social benefits. In February this year, 5.5 per cent of claimants were being sanctioned. There is, too, the architect of Dublin's Heuston station (often misprinted as Euston station): Sancton Wood (often misprinted as Sanction Wood).


The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Chancellor unveils £6bn NHS funding after health-centred spending review
Some £6 billion will be spent on speeding up testing and treatment in the NHS, Rachel Reeves has announced, after she placed the health service at the heart of Government spending plans. The Chancellor unveiled the investment, which includes new scanners, ambulances and urgent treatment centres aimed at providing an extra four million appointments in England over the next five years, after Wednesday's spending review. The funding is aimed at reducing waiting lists and reaching Labour's 'milestone' of ensuring the health service carries out 92% of routine operations within 18 weeks. In the review, Ms Reeves set out day-to-day spending across Government for the next three years, as well as plans for capital investment over the next four years. The NHS and defence were seen as the winners from the settlement, as both will see higher than average rises in public spending. This comes at cost of squeezing the budgets of other Whitehall departments and experts have warned tax rises may be needed later this year. The Chancellor and Sir Keir Starmer both sought to portray the review as a 'new phase' for the Government, following the criticism Labour has faced during its first year in power, including over cuts to winter fuel allowance. Ms Reeves claimed the NHS had been 'put on its knees' as a result of under-investment by the previous government, adding: 'We are investing in Britain's renewal, and we will turn that around.' The new £6 billion investment will come from the capital settlement for the NHS and will also help to speed up diagnoses with scans and treatment available in places such as shopping centres and high streets. The scale of day-to-day spending for the NHS is akin to an extra £29 billion a year. In a broadcast interview on Wednesday evening, Ms Reeves said the Government was 'confident' it could meet its pledge to reduce waiting lists after the boost to NHS spending. But while health and defence have benefited from the review, the Home Office, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Department for Transport and Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are all in line for real-terms cuts in day-to-day spending. The Foreign Office is also in line for real-terms cuts, mainly as a result of a reduction in the overseas aid budget, which was slashed as part of the commitment to boost defence spending to 2.6% of gross domestic product – including the intelligence agencies – from 2027. Ms Reeves acknowledged 'not everyone has been able to get exactly what they want' following Cabinet squabbling over departmental budgets. She said 'every penny' of the spending increases had been funded through the tax and borrowing changes she had announced in her first budget. The Chancellor also insisted she would not need to mount another tax raid to pay for her plans, but experts warned the money for the NHS might still not be enough and the Government is under international pressure to boost defence funding further. Paul Johnson, of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, described the hospital waiting times target as 'enormously ambitious', adding: 'And on defence, it's entirely possible that an increase in the Nato spending target will mean that maintaining defence spending at 2.6% of GDP no longer cuts the mustard.' At a summit later this month Nato members will consider calls to increase spending to 3.5% on defence, with a future 1.5% on defence-related measures. Steven Millard, interim director of the NIESR economic research institute, said the Chancellor's non-negotiable fiscal rules, coupled with the 'small amount of headroom' in her spending plans, meant 'it is now almost inevitable that if she is to keep to her fiscal rules, she will have to raise taxes in the autumn budget'. Elsewhere, policing leaders warned forces may need to make deep cuts after their settlement was announced. The spending review provides more than £2 billion for forces, but ministers have acknowledged some of that 'spending power' will come from council tax hikes.