DAILY MAIL COMMENT: Britain's annus horribilis under an accidental PM
In an Ipsos/Mori survey conducted exactly a year after the 1997 election, Sir Tony Blair 's popularity was even greater than when he steered his party to its momentous victory.
Labour was polling at a thumping 54 per cent – 11 points higher than on election day and his personal approval ratings were similarly sky-high.
Crucially, his backbench MPs adored him, having been propelled back to relevance after 18 years in the wilderness. There were a few exceptions, but the idea of large-scale rebellion was unthinkable.
Compare and contrast with Sir Keir Starmer 's abject first year in office. The Daily Mail said from the start that his was a 'loveless landslide'. And so it has proved.
He is the most unpopular incoming PM on record. His approval rating of minus-39 is a staggering 83 points behind where Sir Tony was at the same stage.
Labour is also languishing behind Reform UK in the polls, his backbenchers are in open revolt and he has been forced into three humiliating policy U-turns inside a month.
Meanwhile, the growth he so confidently promised has atrophied, the UK's already frightening debt and deficit are ballooning and his Chancellor's plans to 'fix the foundations' of the economy are in tatters.
After the latest rebellion over welfare reform, she must find upwards of £3.2billion to balance her sums. This is sure to mean more punishing tax rises – breaking yet another flagship promise.
Rachel Reeves is now a lame-duck Chancellor, who will have to seek the permission of her backbench colleagues for any major spending reform. She is clearly living on borrowed time.
Her boss may be a little more secure – but the storm clouds are gathering. Having forced him into climbdowns on two key policies, his dissident MPs smell blood. Rebellion may become an addiction.
Even with the concessions, the welfare Bill remains a mess and may well fail to pass in the Commons on Tuesday. If it does, Sir Keir's authority will be shot, and rumours will swell about a leadership challenge.
It would be no great surprise. In many ways he is an accidental prime minister. Despite his huge majority, only one in five of those on the electoral roll voted for him. He won by default, because the Tories defenestrated their biggest electoral asset, then dissolved into a dysfunctional, unelectable rabble.
Not being a Conservative was enough to sweep Sir Keir into power, but we quickly discovered he has feet of clay. The truth is he's a man of few real convictions and knows little about the politics of government.
He paid billions to surrender the Chagos Islands on spurious legal grounds and absented himself from historic debates on assisted suicide and late-term abortion. Now, in just 12 months, he has lost control of his party.
So, what happens next? Can he recover, or is he a permanent hostage to his party's class-warrior Left?
Either way the next four years could be horrendous for anyone with a private sector job, savings, property or a pension pot.
The Right must use this time to resolve its differences and unite. The Tories and Reform together currently command 46 per cent of the popular vote, comfortably enough for a super-majority.
By 2029, the country will be even more on its knees than today. If neither Kemi Badenoch nor Nigel Farage can beat Labour on their own, it is their patriotic duty to do so together.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
24 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Just when the world desperately needs wise elders, its fate is in the hands of old and ruthless patriarchs
Let's attempt something delicate: talking about age without slipping into ageism. Never before in modern history have those with the fate of the world in their hands been so old. Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping are both 72. Narendra Modi is 74, Benjamin Netanyahu 75, Donald Trump 79, and Ali Khamenei is 86. Thanks to advances in medical science, people are able to lead longer, more active lives – but we are now also witnessing a frightening number of political leaders tightening their grip on power as they get older, often at the expense of their younger colleagues. This week, at their annual summit, the leaders of Nato – including Emmanuel Macron and Mette Frederiksen (both 47), Giorgia Meloni (48) and Pedro Sánchez (53) – were forced to swallow Trump's demand for increased military spending. The average age of Nato heads of state is 60. Germany's Friedrich Merz is 69, Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is 71. All bowed to a new 5% defence spending target – an arbitrary figure, imposed without serious military reasoning or rational debate, let alone serious democratic debate at home. It was less policy, more deference to the whims of a grumpy patriarch. Nato's secretary general, Mark Rutte – himself just 58 – went so far as to call Trump 'Daddy'. That's not diplomacy. That's submission. This generational clash plays out in other arenas. Ukraine's 47-year-old president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, is resisting the imperial ambitions of septuagenarian Putin. Septuagenarian Xi eyes a Taiwan led by a president seven years his junior. Netanyahu, three-quarters of a century old, is overseeing devastation in Gaza, where almost half the population is under 18. In Iran an 86 year old rules over a population with an average age of 32. Cameroon's Paul Biya, 92, has been in power since 1982 in a country where the median age is 18 and life expectancy just 62. There is no gerontocratic conspiracy at work here – no senior citizens' club bent on global domination. But there is something disturbing about a world being dismantled by the very people whose lives were defined by its postwar architecture. Khamenei was six when the second world war ended. Trump was born in 1946, the year the United Nations held its first general assembly. Netanyahu was born a year after Israel was founded. Modi was born in 1950, as India became a republic. Putin entered the world in October 1952, months before Stalin died. Xi in June 1953, just after. And Erdoğan was born in 1954, two years after Turkey joined Nato. These men are the children of the postwar world – and as they near the end of their lives, they seem determined to tear it down. It almost looks like revenge. Dylan Thomas urged us to 'Rage, rage against the dying of the light'. Rarely has the line felt so literal. Yes, the rules-based international order was always messier in practice than on paper. But at least the ideal existed. There was a shared moral framework – shaky, yes, but sincere – built on the conviction that humanity must never repeat the atrocities of the first half of the 20th century and that dialogue and diplomacy were better. That conviction has now evaporated, not least in the minds of those who should cherish it most. This is an unprecedented moment. The architects of the previous global disorder – Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao – were all in their 30s or 40s when they rose to power. A new generation built a new world, and lived with its consequences. Today, that new world is being unmade by an old generation – one that will not live to see the wreckage it leaves behind. It's easier to shout 'drill, baby, drill' when you're statistically unlikely to experience the worst of climate collapse. Après nous le déluge, as the French say. You might think that a generation so fortunate to benefit from longevity would leave behind a legacy of care, gratitude and global stewardship. Instead, we are witnessing the worst resurgence of repression, violence, genocide, ecocide and contempt for international law in decades – waged, more often than not, by ruthless septuagenarians and octogenarians who appear more interested in escaping prosecution than preserving peace. But it doesn't have to be this way. After leaving office, Nelson Mandela founded the Elders, a network of former world leaders working to promote peace, justice and human rights. Inspired by African traditions of consensus and elder wisdom, the Elders are an example of how age can bring clarity, compassion and conscience – not just clout. The problem isn't old age. It's how some have chosen to wield it. The world doesn't need more ageing strongmen clinging to power. It needs elders who are willing to let go – and guide. The kind who think about legacy not as personal glory, but as the world they leave behind. In this age of age, what we need is not domination, but wisdom. And that, in the end, is what separates a ruler from a leader. David Van Reybrouck is philosopher laureate for the Netherlands and Flanders. His books include Revolusi: Indonesia and the Birth of the Modern World and Congo: The Epic History of a People Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
Wales Online
35 minutes ago
- Wales Online
Keir Starmer warns Wales that Nigel Farage will treat us like 'fools' in scathing attack
Keir Starmer warns Wales that Nigel Farage will treat us like 'fools' in scathing attack The Prime Minister said Nigel Farage 'takes people for fools' Keir Starmer speaking at the Welsh Labour conference at Venue Cymru in Llandudno (Image: Welsh Labour TV/PA ) Prime Minister Keir Starmer has attacked Nigel Farage saying he has "no plan" for Wales. In a speech to Welsh Labour members at their conference in Llandudno he said the Reform UK leader 'isn't interested in Wales'. Referencing Mr Farage's visit to Port Talbot where he said his party wanted to look at reopening mines in Wales and said that the blast furnaces at the Tata plant in Port Talbot should be restarted. The Prime Minister criticised both of those saying the Clacton MP's plan for Port Talbot would result in the current progress towards the electric arc furnace being stopped and jobs being lost. For our free daily briefing on the biggest issues facing the nation, sign up to the Wales Matters newsletter here . The Port Talbot proposal was widely criticised as being unrealistic. Mr Farage himself admitted it would cost 'in the low billions' and industry experts and members said not only is the cost prohibitive but it is impossible to restart a closed blast furnace. He didn't directly criticise the reopening of coals mines suggestion by Mr Farage but did use the opportunity to highlight things his administration had done in terms of committing money to coal tip regeneration and miners' pensions. "Nigel Farage isn't interested in Wales, he's interested in Nigel Farage, he takes people for fools. Article continues below "Just look what he said earlier this month, going to Port Talbot pretending he's got a plan to reopen the blast furnace, he's got no idea what he's talking about. He's got no plan at all. "Let's be clear. What Reform's plans would be mean in practice. Cancelling the electric arc furnace, cancelling the construction work that's on track to start in just a few weeks time, cancelling the 5,000 jobs it'll bring. "That's all you ever need to know about Reform," he said. Reform UK is polling to take seats in the Senedd and a recent UK Parliamentary poll by YouGov showed they would take 23 seats off Labour. Plaid Cymru would also do well at the expense of Labour. Less than a year ago, in the July general election, Labour took 27 of the 32 seats available. You can read that story here. The Senedd election in May 2026 is widely seen as being a huge test for both Eluned Morgan and Keir Starmer. Polling shows Labour could slip from the party in power, for the whole of the devolution period, to third with 18% of the vote. The most recent polling for Wales by YouGov is here. Article continues below The next election will be fought under a new voting system, with new constituencies and will increase the number of Senedd members from 60 to 96 at a cost of billions.
Telegraph
41 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Lord Hermer's denial of two-tier justice is a disgrace
This week, Lord Hermer was asked by the BBC about two-tier justice, the idea that the British state treats ethnic minorities more favourably than the white working class. This perception, so corrosive to faith in the rule of law, has become widespread since the crackdown on the Southport unrest last summer. Never one to read the public or political mood, Starmer's lawyer ally simply issued a blunt and contemptuous denial. Such claims are 'frankly disgusting', he said, and indeed 'offensive' to police, prosecutors and courts. He added that instead of criticising the British justice system, politicians 'need to get behind it, not seek to undermine it'. (Perhaps he should have a word with the justice secretary, Shabana Mahmood, who earlier this year had to intervene to block sentencing guidelines which she herself labelled 'two-tier'.) It's a woefully tone-deaf performance, suggesting that Hermer doesn't even understand why the Government's response to the Southport unrest gave rise to charges of unfairness. He argued that people were wrong to compare the policing of London Gaza marches, often awash with anti-Semitism but 'not producing violence', with the Southport unrest, since this saw attacks against police officers. No one would say violent rioters shouldn't be treated robustly. But what Hermer ignores is the way the state dealt fiercely with white, working-class Southport rioters in a way it never does with more favoured groups. Just weeks before, when rioters in ultra-diverse Harehills, Leeds, overturned a police car and set a bus on fire, the police reportedly ran away. Meanwhile, days into the Southport unrest, when armed Muslim mobs formed supposedly in order to protect their local communities, the police let them have free rein. In Birmingham on August 5, the result was a pub being attacked, with a man outside it suffering a lacerated liver, amid other disorder. Even more than this double-standard though, it is the punitive crackdown on online speech that has caused there were many who found themselves charged and remanded in custody for social media posts, the most high-profile is Lucy Connolly, imprisoned for 31 months for a single nasty tweet (which she later deleted) on the night of the Southport murders. As the Telegraph disclosed earlier this month, Lord Hermer personally approved the prosecution of Mrs Connolly for stirring up racial hatred, despite having the constitutional power not to. Hermer has also declined to seek to review lenient sentences for gang grooming offenders – but in his political judgement, it was in the public interest for Connolly to face up to seven years in prison over one nasty tweet. Former Attorney General Suella Braverman says she would not have consented to the charge. 'We don't have a two-tiered justice system', insists Hermer. We have an 'independent justice system'. But can anyone really look at the state response to Southport and claim it 'independent' from politics? Sir Keir Starmer politicised the justice system the moment he claimed all of those involved were 'far-Right thugs', who had come from out of town to cause chaos. In reality, subsequent analysis of the arrest data along with a recent report by the police inspectorate have poured cold water on those claims. Politicians were also swiftly claiming that online speech was a principal cause, with Hermer himself crowing that 'you cannot hide behind your keyboard'. This narrative was no less dubious – no one needed to be told by social media to be angry about the horrific murders of three children. Yet both became reasons for the police, the CPS and the courts to throw the book at people like Connolly over tweets. '[T]heir intention was always to hammer me', as Lucy told the Telegraph earlier this year. Lucy's two-tier treatment continues to this day. First, she was denied release on temporary license to care for her daughter and sick husband. This is a privilege which even murderers are sometimes granted, and which has been granted to others at Lucy's prison. Now she says she's being cruelly mistreated in prison. Does Hermer seriously think it's 'disgusting' to see this as unfair? Hermer can deny two-tier justice all he likes, but the more the public hears about cases like Connolly, the more the charge rings true. A recent YouGov poll found public confidence in the judicial system at an all-time low, with the proportion expressing 'no confidence at all' rising four per cent since last June. Berating people who feel these concerns will not make them go away.
